Spatial-Temporal Modeling of Forest Gaps Generated by Colonization From Below- and Above-Ground Bark Beetle Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of forest declines are important, because they both reduce timber production and affect successional trajectories of landscapes and ecosystems. Of particular interest is the decline of red pines, which is characterized by expanding areas of dead and chlorotic trees in plantations throughout the Great Lakes region. Here we examine the impact of two bark beetle groups, red turpentine beetles and pine engraver bark beetles, on tree mortality and the subsequent gap formation over time in a plantation in Wisconsin. We construct spatial-temporal statistical models that quantify the relations among red turpentine beetle colonization, pine engraver bark beetle colonization, and mortality of red pine trees while accounting for correlation across space and over time. We extend traditional Markov random-field models to include temporal terms and multiple-response variables aimed at developing a suitable set of statistical models for addressing the scientific questions about the forest ecosystem under study. For statistical inference, we adopt a Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach and devise Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for obtaining the posterior distributions of model parameters as well as posterior predictive distributions. In particular, we implement path sampling combined with perfect simulation for autologistic models while formally addressing the posterior propriety under an improper uniform prior. Our data analysis results suggest that red turpentine beetle colonization is associated with a higher likelihood of pine engraver bark beetle colonization and that pine engraver bark beetle colonization is associated with higher likelihood of red pine tree mortality, whereas there is no direct association between red turpentine beetle colonization and red pine tree mortality. There is strong evidence that red turpentine beetle colonization does not kill a red pine tree directly, but rather predisposes the tree to subsequent colonization by pine engraver bark beetles. The evidence is also strong that pine engraver bark beetles are the ultimate mortality agents of red pine trees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".