MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381997552 · doi:10.3390/f14050989

Suitability of a Historical, Novel, and Occasional Host for Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

2023· article· en· W4381997552 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katherine P. Bleiker, Claire A. Ethier, Brian H. Van Hezewijk

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Resources CanadaMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Environment - SaskatchewanMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsMountain pine beetlePinus contortaDendroctonusCurculionidaeBark beetleBiologyHost (biology)EcologyPicea engelmanniiRange (aeronautics)Woody plantPopulationBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), recently underwent a notable range-expansion event in western Canada, resulting in access to the novel host jack pine, Pinus banksiana Lamb. We assessed the suitability of jack pine for mountain pine beetle, as well as the historic host lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta Dougl. var. latifolia Engelm., and the non-Pinus host white spruce, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, to help inform an assessment of the risk of future spread into Canada’s boreal forest and to further our understanding of host use in bark beetles. Several performance traits we measured were similar between lodgepole pine and jack pine, but gallery length and productivity indicated that lodgepole pine was the more suitable host. Development appeared to be faster in jack pine; however, in contrast to previous studies, we attribute it to oviposition arresting earlier in the novel host compared to the other hosts and not a difference in development rate. Initial productivity was surprisingly high in spruce, but we found evidence of a delayed negative effect that manifested as reduced cold tolerance, delayed development, and high mortality of late-instar larvae. Although jack pine is a suitable host for the mountain pine beetle, our results indicate that the beetle’s eruptive potential could be lower in jack pine compared to lodgepole pine, given all other factors are equal. Other factors that may also affect mountain pine beetle population dynamics require additional research and include the composition and structure of jack pine forests, environmental conditions, and biotic interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207