Effects of bud phenology and foliage chemistry of balsam fir and white spruce trees on the efficacy of <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> against the spruce budworm, <i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1 Efficacy of commercial formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. kurstaki ( Btk ) against spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana was investigated in mixed balsam fir‐white spruce stands. Btk treatments were scheduled to coincide with early flaring of balsam fir shoots, and later with flaring of white spruce shoots. Btk efficacy on the two host trees was compared and examined according to the foliar content of nutrients and allelochemicals and the insect developmental stage at the time of spray. 2 Larvae fed white spruce foliage were less vulnerable to Btk ingestion than larvae fed balsam fir foliage. Higher larval survival on white spruce, observed 10 days after spray, was related to higher foliage content in tannins and a lower N /tannins ratio, which might have induced inactivation of Btk toxins. 3 Larval mortality due to Btk did not depend on spruce budworm larval age. 4 Foliage protection of both host trees was similar in plots treated with Btk : larval mortality due to Btk treatment reduced insect grazing pressure on balsam fir trees; meanwhile, suitability of white spruce foliage seemed to decrease very rapidly, which induced high larval mortality among spruce budworm fed on white spruce trees. Nevertheless, following Btk sprays, 50% more foliage remained on white spruce than on balsam fir trees, because of the higher white spruce foliage production. 5 Both spray timings achieved similar protection of white spruce trees, but Btk treatments had to be applied as early as possible (i.e. during the flaring of balsam fir shoots to optimally protect balsam fir trees in mixed balsam fir‐white spruce stands).
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".