Genetic variation in resistance to leaf fungus indirectly affects spider density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many host-plants exhibit genetic variation in resistance to pathogens; however, little is known about the extent to which genetic variation in pathogen resistance influences other members of the host-plant community, especially arthropods at higher trophic levels. We addressed this knowledge gap by using a common garden experiment to examine whether genotypes of Populus trichocarpa varied in resistance to a leaf-blistering pathogen, Taphrina sp., and in the density of web-building spiders, the dominant group of predatory arthropods. In addition, we examined whether variation in spider density was explained by variation in the density and size of leaf blisters caused by Taphrina. We found that P. trichocarpa genotypes exhibited strong differences in their resistance to Taphrina and that P. trichocarpa genotypes that were more susceptible to Taphrina supported more web-building spiders, the dominant group of predatory arthropods. We suspect that this result is caused by blisters increasing the availability of suitable habitat for predators, and not due to variation in herbivores because including herbivore density as a covariate did not affect our models. Our study highlights a novel pathway by which genetic variation in pathogen resistance may affect higher trophic levels in arthropod communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".