Soil Available Water Holding Capacity Can Alter the Reproductive Performance of Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Jack Pine (Pinales: Pinaceae) Through Phloem Nitrogen Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytidae) has recently invaded novel jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb., Pinales: Pinaceae) forests in western Canada. Jack pine seems to be a suitable host for mountain pine beetle, but how growing conditions influence jack pine's quality as a host, and hence, its susceptibility for mountain pine beetle, is unknown. Specifically, how soil nutrient concentrations and available water holding capacity (AWHC) affect jack pine quality should be investigated. Host plant quality is an important determinant of mountain pine beetle host colonization and reproduction and is usually assessed by primary (nutrients) and secondary (defense chemistry) constituents of host phloem. We evaluated mountain pine beetle host acceptance and brood production by recording the percentage of female mountain pine beetle that entered the phloem and oviposited in 30 jack pine bolts from two sites that differed in soil nutrient concentrations and AWHC. We also compared the concentrations of phloem nutrients and defense monoterpenes among the selected trees and found that trees at the Low AWHC site had higher amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Monoterpene concentrations did not differ among trees at the two sites. Host acceptance by and brood production of mountain pine beetle were greater in bolts from the Low AWHC site. We conclude that AWHC of the soil may influence mountain pine beetle host acceptance and brood production through altering host plant quality, particularly nitrogen in the phloem, and will potentially influence any further range expansion of the beetle in eastern North America.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".