MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174258346 · doi:10.1093/jee/98.6.2254

Hybrid Poplar Clones with Populus maximowiczii Parentage Demonstrate Postoviposition Antibiosis to Cryptorhynchus lapathi (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

2005· article· en· W2174258346 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia L. Broberg, John H. Borden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPopulus trichocarpaCurculionidaeAntibiosisSalicaceaeBotanyLarvaPEST analysisWeevilWillowHorticultureWoody plantGeneGeneticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage caused by the poplar-and-willow borer, Cryptorhynchus lapathi (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is reported to vary among hybrid poplar clones. We evaluated oviposition preferences and larval success in four hybrid poplars on potted and field-planted trees. Oviposition occurred somewhat less frequently and abundantly on two clones with Populus maximowiczii Henry parentage in field-planted and potted trees, and significantly fewer larvae survived to adulthood on those clones. No adults emerged from field-planted NM 6 (Populus nigra L. x P. maximowiczii) and four emerged from TM 256-28 (Populus trichocarpa Torrey & Gray x P. maximowiczii) on which male-female pairs of C. lapathi had been caged. In contrast, 50 and 140 adults emerged over the same 2-yr period from two susceptible clones (n = 20), TD 52-226 (P. trichocarpa x Populus deltoides Bartram ex Marshall) and TN 302-9 (P. trichocarpa x P. nigra), respectively. Thus, resistance expressed by clones with P. maximowiczii parentage partially involves decreased levels of oviposition, but more significantly, antibiosis in resistant clones prevents the development of larvae, probably in early spring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207