Do white spruce epicuticular wax monoterpenes follow foliar patterns?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the extent to which foliar monoterpenes are trapped in the epicuticular waxes as part of an investigation into their role in natural defense against folivores. We monitored concentrations in white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) previous-year foliage and expanding foliage and their epicuticular waxes over the 2010 (14 trees) and 2011 (25 trees) growing seasons. In 2010, concentrations were low in the spring and increased over the summer; in 2011, they stayed low. The monoterpene profile of individual trees was similar between years and showed a consistent pattern over the growing season; in expanding foliage, δ-3-carene was only present in spring, whereas bornyl acetate increased over the growing season. Individual wax monoterpene profiles correlated with those of foliage, but the total concentration showed a different phenological pattern. Total content remained constant throughout the growing season on previous-year foliage but decreased on expanding foliage. Electron microscopy suggests this is due to changes in stomatal wax plugs and their role in blocking evaporation from the stomata. These findings suggest that insects contacting the leaf surface will receive accurate information from the wax chemical composition about the monoterpene mix but not about overall monoterpene levels.
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".