Genetic variation of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. Latifolia [Engelm.]) chemical and physical defenses that affect mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae attack and tree mortality.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current outbreak of mountain pine beetle (MPB), Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and its fungal complex Grosmannia clavigera has affected ~15 million hectares of lodgepole pine Pinus contorta var. latifolia (Engelm.) in British Columbia. This is of great concern to forest industry in British Columbia but it has provided a rare opportunity to study genetic variation of lodgepole pine defense mechanisms against MPB. Based on a previous study, we selected 45 open-pollinated families from a population of 180 families, with the number of trees per family ranging from 16-26 (for a total of 887 trees) from two 20-year field tests which had undergone attack from MPB. Chemical and physical defensive responses were quantified in response to simulated attack by the MPB fungal complex on these 45 families. These responses included: physical exudation of resin, host compartmentalization response to fungal inoculation, and levels of constitutive and induced resin terpenoids. Further assessments were made for tree height, DBH (diameter at breast height ~1.4 m), bark texture, tree mortality, and MPB presence, attack density, reproduction, and brood development, as well as the presence of hypersensitivity reactions by the tree to MPB. --P. iii.
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 | 0.001 | 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".