MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971913769 · doi:10.1139/x09-167

Predicting the impact of hemlock woolly adelgid on carbon dynamics of eastern United States forests

2010· article· en· W1971913769 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco Albani, P. R. Moorcroft, Aaron M. Ellison, David A. Orwig, David R. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsTsugaInfestationBiomass (ecology)EcologyForestryForest ecologyEcosystemGeographyBiologyEnvironmental scienceAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA; Adelges tsugae Annand) is an introduced insect pest that threatens to decimate eastern hemlock ( Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carriere) populations. In this study, we used the ecosystem demography model in conjunction with a stochastic model of HWA spread to predict the impact of HWA infestation on the current and future forest composition, structure, and carbon (C) dynamics in the eastern United States. The spread model predicted that on average the hemlock stands south and east of the Great Lakes would be infested by 2015, southern Michigan would be reached by 2020, and northeastern Minnesota by 2030. For the period 2000–2040, the ecosystem demography model predicted a mean reduction of 0.011 Pg C·year –1 (Pg C = 10 15 g C), an 8% decrease, in the uptake of carbon from eastern United States forests as a result of HWA-caused mortality, followed by an increased uptake of 0.015 Pg C·year –1 (a 12% increase) in the period 2040–2100, as the area recovers from the loss of hemlock. Overall, we conclude that while locally severe, HWA infestation is unlikely to have a significant impact on the regional patterns of carbon fluxes, given that eastern hemlock represents a limited fraction of the standing biomass of eastern forests and that it has relatively low productivity compared with the tree species that are likely to replace it.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations84
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207