Interactions Between<i>Scolytus ventralis</i>and<i>Pityokteines elegans</i>(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in<i>Abies grandis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When standing and fallen grand firs, Abies grandis (Douglas ex D. Don) Lindley, were co-attacked by fir engravers, Scolytus ventralis LeConte, and Pityokteines elegans (Swaine), 5.8% of galleries of the latter species were initiated from galleries of the former. Larval S. ventralis avoided contact with both con- and heterospecific galleries, whereas P. elegans adult and larval galleries freely crossed those of S. ventralis. There were strong and weak negative relationships for gallery establishment and emergence, respectively, between the 2 species, but numerous instances in which both species co-inhabited the same resource. Unlike many scolytids, the 2 species did not partition the host according to the diameter of the bole. The results indicate a moderate level of competitive interaction between the 2 species in which P. elegans would either colonize an area of bark before S. ventralis, which would then not initiate attack, or in which both species would co-attack a host, but S. ventralis would avoid phloem colonized by P. elegans.
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) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".