Tree resin flow dynamics during an experimentally induced attack by <i>Ips avulsus</i>, <i>I. calligraphus</i>, and <i>I. grandicollis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of tree colonization by bark beetles depends on their ability to overcome host tree defenses, including resin exudation and toxic chemicals, which deter bark beetle colonization. Resin defenses during insect outbreaks are challenging to study in situ, as outbreaks are stochastic events that progress quickly and thus preclude the establishment of baseline observations of non-infested controls. We use synthetic aggregation pheromones to demonstrate that confined Ips bark beetle herbivory can be successfully initiated to provide opportunities for studying interactions between bark beetles and their hosts, including the dynamics of constitutive and induced resin exudation. In Pinus taeda L. plantations between 12 and 19 years old in North and South Carolina, U.S., trees were affixed with pheromone lures, monitored for evidence of bark beetle attacks, and resin samples were collected throughout the growing season. Baiting increased beetle herbivory to an extent sufficient to produce an induced resin response. Attacked trees exuded about three times more resin at some time than control trees. This supports previous work that demonstrated that information on constitutive resin dynamics alone provides an incomplete view of a host tree’s resistance to bark beetle attack.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".