A Comment on “Feeding and Oviposition Preferences of White Pine Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on Resistant and Susceptible Sitka Spruce Clones in Laboratory Bioassays”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associations between the density and distribution of cortical resin canals of host trees and their resistance against insects have been the subject of many studies (Stroh and Gerhold 1965; Wilkinson 1983; Tomlin and Borden 1994a, 1994b). None, however, has demonstrated a causal relationship between number, density, or distribution of resin canals and resistance. For demonstrating causal relationships between resistance and its causative factors and identifying distinct mechanisms of resistance, our understanding must advance beyond associations. The premise of Alfaro (1996) constitutes an initial step for exploring a possible causal relationship between the density of cortical resin canals and resistance by proposing and testing a biologically meaningful hypothesis. He examined feeding and partial oviposition patterns on resistant and susceptible young grafts of Picea sitchensis (Bong) Carr. by Pissodes strobi Peck. in a greenhouse experiment and feeding patterns on the terminal and penultimate internodes of lateral branches in petri dishes. The main finding was that feeding and oviposition are several times greater on the penultimate internode of the main stem than on the leader. The author then hypothesized that this pattern "could be the result" of a higher number of resin canals, a higher proportion of the bark area being occupied by resin canals, or a higher density of the constitutive cortical resin canals in the leader. In a separate sample of three resistant and three susceptible trees he found that the density of resin canals and the area occupied by them per unit area of the bark are higher in the leaders than in the corresponding penultimate internodes. From these data he concluded, "bark resin canals play an important role in the resistance of spruce to weevils" not only within his experiment but also by extrapolation of this inference to explain how resistance may function in the field.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".