Function of Sitka spruce stone cells as a physical defence against white pine weevil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stone cells are a physical defence of conifers against stem feeding insects such as weevils and bark beetles. In Sitka spruce, abundance of stone cells in the cortex of apical shoot tips is associated with resistance to white pine weevil. However, the mode of action by which stone cells interfere with growth and development of weevil larvae is unknown. We developed a bioassay system for testing potential effects of stone cells, which were isolated from resistant trees, on weevil larvae. Bioassays using artificial diet and controlled amounts of stone cells focused on physical defence. We evaluated the effects of stone cells on establishment of neonate larvae, mandible wear and changes in relative growth rates of third instar larvae. Establishment of neonates and relative growth rates of third instars were significantly reduced by stone cells. Stone cells appeared to be indigestible by weevil larvae. Our results suggest that stone cells affect weevil establishment and development by forming a physical feeding barrier against neonate larvae at the site of oviposition, and by reducing access to nutrients in the cortex of resistant trees, which contain an abundance of stone cells in place of a more nutrient rich tissue in susceptible trees.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".