Assessment of cues potentially mediating host selection of <i> <scp>L</scp> eptoglossus occidentalis </i> on <i> <scp>P</scp> inus contorta </i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract L eptoglossus occidentalis causes significant damage in conifer seed orchards. Host selection by L . occidentalis is not completely understood. Earlier research has demonstrated a preference for certain clones of P inus contorta , indicating that L . occidentalis responds to chemical or physical cues. The present study aimed to test whether L . occidentalis shows clonal preference across years, and to examine whether the host cues responsible for this could be identified. Surveys were conducted in a lodgepole pine seed orchard in B ritish C olumbia in 2008 and 2009. Clones were ranked based on the proportion of their ramets on which L . occidentalis was observed. Ramets were divided into three classes: (i) preferred clones with seed bugs; (ii) preferred clones without seed bugs; and (iii) nonpreferred clones with zero or very low numbers of seed bugs. From each clone, we measured infrared radiation emitted from cones, cone monoterpenes, cone size and numbers of cones per tree. Clone preference was consistent between 2008 and 2009. Clone preference classes differed significantly in α‐pinene and δ‐3 carene and limonene. L eptoglossus occidentalis was found more frequently on clones with cones of greater diameter and weight. Infrared radiation did not differ between clone preference classes, indicating that it is not used in host acceptance.
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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".