Influence of Host Tree Condition on the Performance of<i>Tetropium fuscum</i>(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tetropium fuscum (F.) attacks weakened Norway spruce, Picea abies (L.) Karst., in its native Europe and may colonize healthy spruce in Nova Scotia, Canada. We used manipulative field experiments to evaluate: 1) the development of T. fuscum on apparently healthy red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) in Nova Scotia; 2) the influence of red spruce physiological condition (healthy, girdled or cut) on T. fuscum performance; and 3) the impact of natural enemies and competitors on T. fuscum performance when developing on trees of varying condition. Tetropium fuscum successfully developed on healthy red spruce. Survival was higher on healthy than on girdled or cut trees when larvae were exposed to natural enemies and competitors. The benefits of reduced competition and parasitism on healthy trees appeared to compensate for any reductions in nutritional quality, increase in host resistance, or both. In contrast, when T. fuscum were protected from natural enemies, apparent survival was highest on girdled trees. Tetropium fuscum development took longer on healthy than on cut or girdled trees, and emerged adults were largest on healthy trees. The disparities in adult sizes among the three treatments may mean that healthy trees are more nutritious. Alternatively, the differences may indicate that a greater amount of time was spent feeding in healthy than in girdled or cut trees. Tree condition appears to have a direct impact on the success of T. fuscum, influencing survival, development time, and adult size, and may mediate the impact of natural enemies and competitors, further affecting T. fuscum performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".