Water-deficit and fungal infection can differentially affect the production of different classes of defense compounds in two host pines of mountain pine beetle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bark beetles are important agents of tree mortality in conifer forests and their interaction with trees is influenced by host defense chemicals, such as monoterpenes and phenolics. Since mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) has expanded its host range from lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Doug. ex Loud. (var. latifolia Engelm.))-dominated forests to the novel jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) forests in western Canada, studies investigating the jack pine suitability as a host for this beetle have exclusively focused on monoterpenes, and whether phenolics affect jack pine suitability to mountain pine beetle and its symbiotic fungus Grosmannia clavigera is unknown. We investigated the phenolic and monoterpene composition in phloem and foliage of jack and lodgepole pines, and their subsequent change in response to water deficit and G. clavigera inoculation treatments. In lodgepole pine phloem, water deficit treatment inhibited the accumulation of both the total and richness of phenolics, but had no effect on total monoterpene production or richness. Fungal infection also inhibited the total phenolic production and had no effect on phenolic or monoterpene richness, but increased total monoterpene synthesis by 71%. In jack pine phloem, water deficit treatment reduced phenolic production, but had no effect on phenolic or monoterpene richness or total monoterpenes. Fungal infection did not affect phenolic or monoterpene production. Lesions of both species contained lower phenolics but higher monoterpenes than non-infected phloem in the same tree. In both species, richness of monoterpenes and phenolics was greater in non-infected phloem than in lesions. We conclude that monoterpenes seem to be a critical component of induced defenses against G. clavigera in both jack and lodgepole pines; however, a lack of increased monoterpene response to fungal infection is an important evolutionary factor defining jack pine suitability to the mountain pine beetle invasion in western Canada.
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".