Assessment of the impact of symbiont Ophiostomatales (Fungi) on mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) performance on a jack pine (Pinaceae) diet using a novel<i>in vitro</i>rearing method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A novel “rearing-tube” method was developed and used to investigate the performance of mountain pine beetle (MPB),Dendroctonus ponderosaeHopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), with its three main ophiostomatalean fungal symbionts,Grosmannia clavigera(Robinson-Jeffrey and Davidson) Zipfel, de Beer, and Wingfield (Ophiostomataceae),Ophiostoma montium(Rumbold) von Arx (Ophiostomataceae), andLeptographium longiclavatumLee, Kim, and Breuil (Ophiostomataceae). Transparent glass tubes filled with sterile ground jack pine (Pinus banksianaLambert; Pinaceae) phloem and sapwood (9:1 ratio) were used to rear MPB from egg to adult with each fungus under controlled environmental conditions. Mountain pine beetle mortality was higher and development longer in fungus-free controls compared to fungal treatments. Among fungal treatments, insects developed faster, constructed shorter larval galleries, and had fewer supernumerary instars withL. longiclavatum.Insect survival was not affected by fungal treatments. Hyphal extension through the rearing medium was fastest forL. longiclavatum. Phloem nitrogen was reduced significantly by the presence ofL. longiclavatum.Results support the hypothesis that ophiostomatalean symbionts provide benefits to MPB. The rearing-tube method is useful to tease apart confounding interspecific interactions between bark beetles and symbiotic fungus species.
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".