Effectiveness of combinations of shelterwood, scarification, and feeding barriers to reduce pine weevil damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a field experiment in southern Sweden we investigated the single and combined effects of shelterwood, soil scarification, and feeding barriers on pine weevil (Hylobius abietis L.) damage to Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) seedlings. The seedlings were planted on four different sites, each consisting of two plots, one clearcut and one with shelterwood (98148 stems/ha). These plots were each subdivided into two parts, one scarified and one left untreated. The seedlings were protected with insecticide or feeding barriers or left as unprotected controls. Three years after planting the mortality due to pine weevil damage was high (88%) for unprotected seedlings on clearcuts with no scarification. The damage-reducing effects of shelterwood, scarification, and physical protection were additive. Using all three methods in combination the mortality due to pine weevil feeding was less than 7% after 3 years. The order of effectiveness of the individual measures for reducing damage by pine weevils was insecticide, scarification, physical protection, and shelterwood. Scarification reduced pine weevil damage equally well on clearcuts as in shelterwoods. However, the effects of scarification were more long lasting in shelterwoods.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".