Linkages Between the Phenologies of Jack Pine <i>(Pinus Banksiana)</i> Foliage and Jack Pine Budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field study conducted in 2001 and 2002 in the Michigan Upper Peninsula investigated seasonal associations between the development of jack pine, Pinus banksiana Lamb., and larvae of the jack pine budworm Choristoneura pinus Freeman (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). There was almost no active relationship between post-diapause emerging second instars and elongation of vegetative shoots. Early instars were not closely synchronized with the flushing of current-year needle fascicles, which is required to optimize larval feeding. How- ever, there were close feeding and shelter relationships between early instars and year-2 pollen cone development. Associations with, and larval damage to, year-2 seed cones were dependent upon larval population size and posed only minimal and periodic threats to jack pine seed production. As a consequence, early instar jack pine budworm relied almost exclusively on pollen cones for survival. Third to fifth instars vacated pollen cones as soon as they became desiccated. Only then did these larvae start close associations with vegetative shoots. First, they excised partially emerged needles at their base, and when the needle-pairs completely escaped their fascicle sheath, the larvae fed routinely on the complete needle lamina. Late instars, pupae and adults were associated with previous years’ and current-year foliage without any apparent bias. This study has shown that it might be more practical to time insecticide strategies, which are intended to manage jack pine budworm larvae, to the tree’s phenology rather than jack pine budworm larval indices.
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".