Dendrochronological reconstruction of forest tent caterpillar outbreaks in time and space, western Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tree-ring reconstruction of forest tent caterpillar ( Malacosoma disstria Hubner) outbreaks was conducted in the Duck Mountain Provincial Forest. Trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides Michx.), balsam poplar ( Populus balsamifera L.), and paper birch ( Betula papyrifera Marsh.) tree-ring chronologies were used to identify periods of outbreaks from approximately 1800 to 2002. The impacts of the major forest tent caterpillar outbreaks of the 20th century were compared among four stand types and two age classes. The presence of white rings and growth suppression were used to identify three important outbreak periods, 1939–1948, 1961–1965, and 1982–1985, with another large-scale outbreak suspected during the 1870s. A roughly 20-year interval was observed between major outbreaks. Few differences were found between stand types, except during the 1960s, when mixed stands with jack pine ( Pinus banksiana Lamb.) registered more growth suppression and white rings. In general, the outbreak signal in the younger sites was variable. The importance of utilizing white rings and growth suppression data together is discussed. The major outbreaks of the 20th century generally started in the north of the Duck Mountain Provincial Forest. The technique was successful at identifying forest tent caterpillar outbreaks during the 20th and late 19th centuries, when no historical surveys were available.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".