MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043909876 · doi:10.1093/jisesa/ieaa063

Random and Directed Movement by Warren Root Collar Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Relative to Size and Distance of Host Lodgepole Pine Trees

2020· article· en· W3043909876 on OpenAlexafffund
Sharleen L. Balogh, Niklas Björklund, Dezene P.W. Huber, B. Staffan Lindgren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Insect Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for InnovationBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsCurculionidaeBiologyWeevilPinus contortaHost (biology)PEST analysisMountain pine beetleWoody plantBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hylobius warreni Wood (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) is a pest of conifers, especially lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Douglas ex Loudon) (Pinales: Pinaceae) in the Interior of British Columbia. The larvae feed on the roots and root collars and cause girdling damage, resulting in mortality or growth reductions. Previous research has suggested the adult weevils locate potential host trees by using random movements and vision, but likely not chemosensory cues. The purpose of this study is to determine if adult H. warreni respond to particular tree characteristics versus encounter potential hosts at random. Study A was a capture-mark-recapture experiment where weevils were captured on mature pine trees, while Study B was a tracking experiment within a young pine plantation. Weevils showed a preference for larger trees, and for trees that were closer to the weevil's last known location. In Study A, weevils also avoided climbing trees in poor health, while in Study B, the weevils' preference for taller trees increased as their distance from the weevil increased, as well as when taller trees were closer to other trees. Movement rates were similar to those observed in previous studies, were positively correlated with the average spacing of trees, and declined with time after release. This confirms previous findings that H. warreni may locate host trees by both vision and random movements, and that their movements are determined primarily by the size and distribution of potential host trees within their habitat.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Insect ScienceSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207