Effects of surrounding forest and site conditions on growth reduction of balsam fir and spruce caused by spruce budworm defoliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The species composition of surrounding forest and site characteristics have been postulated to influence growth loss caused by eastern spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) defoliation. Forty spruce (Picea spp.) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) stands located in north-central New Brunswick, Canada, were measured for defoliation and tree growth and used to determine the effects of surrounding forest (softwood, mixedwood), site (wet soil nutrient poor; moist soil nutrient rich), and species group (balsam fir, spruce) on growth reduction caused by spruce budworm. Stem analysis of six trees per stand (total 240 trees) determined mean specific volume increment (SVI) per year in 19731993. There was relatively little defoliation during the 19891993 measurement period, and regression analyses showed that SVI was significantly (p = 0.0299) related to mean defoliation for only one of eight treatment classes: balsam fir on moistrich sites in mixedwood forests. However, two periods of earlier growth reduction were evident, and analysis of variance showed that balsam fir on wetpoor sites sustained 12% greater (p = 0.0071) reduction in SVI from 1987 to 1990 than balsam fir on moistrich sites. White spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) sustained 13% greater (p = 0.0198) reduction in SVI from 1973 to 1978 than red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP). Surrounding forest type did not significantly affect SVI reduction from 1973 to 1978 or from 1987 to 1990, but from 1973 to 1978 stands in softwood forest sustained 5%8% more growth reduction than those in mixedwood forest.
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".