Douglas-fir cone gall midges respond to shape and infrared wavelength attributes of host tree branches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We tested the hypothesis that the conophagous Douglas-fir cone gall midge,Contarinia oregonensisFoote (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), responds to infrared (IR) radiation and other electromagnetic wavelengths associated with cones of Douglas-fir,Pseudotsuga menziesii(Mirbel) Franco (Pinaceae). Early-season (March–April) thermographic images showed that cone orientation (upright, horizontal, pendant) and cone colour (green, purple, green/purple) did not affect apparent cone temperature (inferred from thermographic images). Tree components significantly differed in apparent temperature with foliage being coolest and branches warmest. There was no significant difference in the number of larvae in cones of different colours, and adult midges were equally attracted to traps painted green or purple, suggesting that cone colour does not affect oviposition decisions by gravid females. Adult midges were more strongly attracted to warm traps with IR frequency emissions higher than the background than to cold traps with IR frequency emissions lower than the background. They were also more strongly attracted to warm branch-shaped traps than to warm can-shaped traps. Collectively, these data indicate that the shape and IR attributes of Douglas-fir branches may serve as foraging cues forC. oregonensis.
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".