Site factors and management influence short‐term host resistance to spruce budworm, <i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i> (Clem.), in a species‐specific manner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the interactions between thinning and soil drainage classes on the resistance of balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill, white spruce, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, and black spruce, P. mariana (Mill.) BSP, to spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), defoliation 1 year after treatment. To estimate host tree resistance, foliage production and larval foliage consumption were determined to generate an index of resistance quantifying the amount of residual foliage available for photosynthesis after insect defoliation. RESULTS: Significant interactions on tree resistance and foliage chemistry were detected between thinning and soil drainage in balsam fir. Drainage class affected spruce budworm performance, foliar chemistry and balsam fir resistance to spruce budworm, whereas no effect was found in white spruce. Thinning had a significant effect on the foliar chemistry of balsam fir and white spruce, but no effect on black spruce. CONCLUSION: Thinning reduced balsam fir resistance to spruce budworm defoliation. This response is due to increased defoliation linked to reduction in concentrations of certain monoterpenes, and a decrease in foliage production, except on hydric drainage, demonstrating the importance of drainage class to tree resistance. The results suggest that the use of Bacillus thuringiensis might be required when conducting stand thinning during spruce budworm outbreaks.
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".