Gallery success, brood production, and condition of mountain pine beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) reared in whitebark and lodgepole pine from Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breeding pairs of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) were introduced into freshly cut bolts of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm. ex S. Watson) in the laboratory. Brood adults emerging from the bolts were collected and galleries were dissected to compare reproductive success, brood production, and adult condition between the two pines. Beetles were more likely to establish egg galleries that produced brood in lodgepole pine than in whitebark pine. Larval gallery density per centimetre of egg gallery was significantly higher in whitebark pine than in lodgepole pine; however, egg galleries also tended to be shorter in whitebark pine bolts, and consequently, brood adults emerging production per gallery did not differ between the two host species. Female body size, mass, and fat content of brood adults and survival from larva to adult did not differ between beetles reared in the two hosts. Though this no-choice assay did not simulate the sequence of events occurring during host selection, these results are consistent with other data suggesting that beetles could be less likely to attack whitebark pines in southwestern Alberta. Whitebark pines that are attacked will produce brood in similar numbers and condition as those from lodgepole pines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".