Short‐term influence of partial cutting on hemlock looper ( <scp>L</scp> epidoptera: <scp>G</scp> eometridae) parasitism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Silvicultural treatments are suggested as an option for controlling insect defoliators, although the effects of treatment on parasitism remain widely unknown. Therefore, in the present study, the influence of partial cutting on hemlock looper Lambdina fiscellaria (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) parasitism is studied by comparing two cutting intensities (25% and 40% reduction of stand basal area) against controls. Laboratory reared hemlock looper pupae are periodically exposed in each plot to determine parasitism rates for a period of 3 years after partial cutting treatments. Two and three years after partial cutting, wild hemlock looper larvae are also collected in the same plots. Malaise traps and meteorological data loggers are installed to measure the influence of partial cutting on parasitoid abundance and microclimate. Parasitism of hemlock looper pupae is significantly lower in plots with the higher partial cutting intensity compared with control plots. Also temperature and humidity, as well as the number of Apechthis ontario (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) females in plots, are significantly influenced by partial cutting. However, only mean and minimum temperature can significantly explain parasitism of hemlock looper pupae. To sustain parasitism rates in forest stands vulnerable to hemlock looper defoliation at naturally high levels, it is recommended to refrain from partial cutting or to conduct this treatment at intensities lower than 40%.
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".