Host Tree Species Affects Spruce Budworm Winter Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With current trends in global warming, it has been suggested that spruce budworm outbreaks may spread to northern parts of the boreal forest. However, the major constraints for a northward expansion are the availability of suitable host trees and the insect winter survival capacity. This study aimed to determine the effect of larval feeding on balsam fir, white spruce and black spruce on various spruce budworm life history traits of both the parental and the progeny generations. Results indicated that the weight of the overwintering larval progeny and their winter survival were influenced by host tree species on which larvae of the parental generation fed. White spruce was the most suitable host for the spruce budworm, producing the heaviest pupae and the heaviest overwintering larvae while black spruce was the least suitable, producing the smallest pupae and the smallest overwintering progeny. Overwintering larvae produced by parents that fed on black spruce also suffered higher winter mortality than individuals coming from parents that fed on balsam fir or white spruce. With current trends in global warming, spruce budworm is expected to expand its range to northern boreal forests where black spruce is the dominant tree species. Such northern range expansion might not result in outbreaks if low offspring winter survival on black spruce persist.
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".