MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980752369 · doi:10.1139/x03-256

The impact of tree and stand characteristics on spruce beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) induced mortality of white spruce in the Copper River Basin, Alaska

2004· article· en· W1980752369 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patricia Doak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiameter at breast heightBasal areaBiologyBark beetleHost (biology)Mortality rateEcologyForestryDemographyGeographyBark (sound)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I examined the relationships between individual and stand-level characteristics of white spruce, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, and the incidence of spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby, induced mortality. The study region, in the Kennicott Valley of the Copper River Basin, Alaska, has contained an active spruce beetle epidemic since 1989. I investigated the relationship among the individual traits of host age, size (diameter at breast height, DBH), and growth rate (basal area increment, BAI) and mortality from the spruce beetle. I also examined the effects of stand density, mean DBH, and mean BAI on percent mortality within plots. Survival was higher for younger, smaller, and faster-growing trees. However, the effect of age is not significant when included in a logistic regression model examining the effect of individual host traits on host survival. Mortality increased with increasing DBH and decreasing BAI, and there was a significant interaction between DBH and BAI. While the proportion of individuals killed by the spruce beetle significantly differed between stands, I found no significant relationships between stand-level characteristics and mortality rate. This research suggests that the individual traits of host size and growth rate, as well as their interaction are the best predictors of susceptibility to spruce beetle-induced mortality in this system.

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)0.002
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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
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

Citations28
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207