MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409332958 · doi:10.3390/f16040649

Host Use Does Not Drive Genetic Structure of the Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), in Western North America

2025· article· en· W4409332958 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Celia K. Boone, K. Thompson, Philippe Henry, Brent W. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome AlbertaGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsCurculionidaeDendroctonusMountain pine beetleBark beetleHost (biology)EcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) (MPB) is one component of an intensively studied co-evolved insect–host system. We investigated the spatial genetic structure of the MPB within its historic and recent geographic range expansion as it relates to host use in western North America using 13 pre-selected microsatellite loci. Analysis of molecular variation (AMOVA) indicates that genetic structure is not correlated with the host tree species and therefore does not support the hypothesis of the formation of a host race within this species. STRUCTURE analysis delineates four main clusters in western North America: (1) northern: northern British Columbia/northern Alberta; (2) central: southern British Columbia/southern Alberta/Washington/Idaho/Montana; (3) southwestern: Oregon/California/Nevada; and (4) southeastern: Utah/Wyoming/Arizona/Colorado/South Dakota. Heterozygosity, allelic richness, and the number of private alleles are greatest in the Southwest cluster. This cluster correlates with one of the three refugia hypothesized from a recent analysis of neo-Y haplotypes and represents an important reservoir of MPBs’ genetic diversity.

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 score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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