Interguild interactions between a non‐native phloem feeder and a native outbreaking defoliator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Competitive and synergistic interactions directly or indirectly drive community dynamics of herbivorous insects. Novel interactions between non‐native and native insects are unpredictable and not fully understood. 2. We used manipulative experiments on mature red spruce trees to test interactions between a non‐native phloem feeding insect, the brown spruce longhorn beetle (BSLB), and an outbreaking native defoliator, the spruce budworm. We subjected treatment trees to defoliation by three densities of spruce budworm larvae. Treatment trees were: stressed by (i) girdling (to mimic beetle feeding) or (ii) girdling + BSLB before spruce budworm larvae were introduced on branches in sleeve cages. Budworm larvae then fed on foliage and developed to pupation. We assessed all branches for budworm performance, defoliation, shoot production and shoot growth. 3. Shoot length did not differ in response to stress from girdling or BSLB infestation. Neither stress from girdling, nor interactions with BSLB feeding affected spruce budworm performance or defoliation. Intraspecific impacts on performance and defoliation in relation to budworm density were stronger than the effects of tree stress. 4. Prior infestation of red spruce by BSLB in our experimental set‐up did not influence spruce budworm performance. BSLB is a successful invader that has blended into its novel ecological niche because of ecological and phylogenetic similarities with a native congener, Tetropium cinnamopterum . 5. Outbreaks by BSLB will not likely impede or facilitate spruce budworm outbreaks if they co‐occur. It would be useful to evaluate the reverse scenario of BSLB success after defoliation stress by spruce budworm.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".