Primary Cortex Thickness Influences the Location of Ovarian Maturation Feeding and Oviposition of<i>Pissodes strobi</i>(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) within a Tree
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The white pine weevil’s [Pissodes strobi (Peck)] choice of bark tissue for ovarian maturation feeding was determined. In addition, the thicknesses of primary cortex tissue were determined to ascertain if primary cortex thickness was positively correlated with the selection of oviposition sites. White pine weevils engaged in ovarian-maturation feeding and oviposition, referred to in this article as reproductively active female weevils, preferentially feed on primary cortex tissues of Sitka spruce, Picea sitchensis (Bongard) Carriere, and interior spruce (a complex of white spruce [Picea glauca (Moench) Voss] and Englemann spruce [P. englemannii Parry]) leaders. On these leaders they feed mostly and oviposit almost exclusively in sterigmata ridges where the thickest primary cortex occurs. Branches of open-grown trees have insufficient primary cortex thickness; they are not normally used for oviposition and are used poorly by caged reproductively active female weevils. Reproductively active female weevils do not normally oviposit on the main stem below the leader where the primary cortex is thinner, but will do so when they do not have access to the leader or when caged on lower inter-nodes. This weevil attacked branches and the main stem below the leader in Picea chihuaiana (Martinez) and P. mexicana [=P. engelmannii Parry variety mexicana (Martinez)] trees in locations where the thickness of the primary cortex is greater than in other species studied. Only primary cortex thickness increases with tree height in Sitka and interior spruces. The female white pine weevil’s preferential feeding upon this tissue in the spring can account for their movement from ground level to tree tops.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".