Infection by <i>Nosema fumiferanae</i> (Microsporidia: Nosematidae) and feeding on previous-year’s foliage do not interact in affecting late instars of the spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Infection by Nosema fumiferanae (Thomson) (Microsporidia: Nosematidae) and feeding by late-instars on previous year’s foliage due to depletion of current year’s growth (also known as back-feeding) are likely to co-occur in high-density outbreak populations of the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)). We tested the hypothesis that effects of the two factors on larval fitness are exacerbated by their interaction. Twigs of balsam fir (Abies balsamea Linnaeus; Pinaceae) with or without new-growth shoots were fed to sixth-instar offspring from uninfected, moderately infected, or highly infected females in two laboratory experiments. Pupal mass and time to reach the pupal stage were significantly affected by infection and back-feeding but not by their interaction. Pupal mass decreased and development time increased with increasing spore burden in a linear fashion. Back-feeding had a significant effect on survival to the pupal stage, but infection did not, nor did their interaction. The relatively small changes in survival, pupal mass, and development time caused by infection and back-feeding were additive. The results thus refute our hypothesis that infection by N. fumiferanae and forced feeding on last year’s foliage by late instars are likely to interact in affecting spruce budworm recruitment in older outbreak populations.
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".