Effects of oviposition by periodical cicadas on tree growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodical cicadas ( Magicicada spp.) occur at very high densities and synchronously emerge from underground every 13 or 17 years. During the emergence, adults lay eggs in tree branches, causing significant damage; however, the long-term impact of this damage is unknown. We conducted two large-scale field studies during the 2004 emergence of one brood (Brood X) to measure the growth of trees in relation to oviposition damage by periodical cicadas. In the first experiment, we netted areas to exclude cicadas from plots in 15 early successional forests and then measured trunk circumference for 3 years on more than 4000 trees of 52 species. In this experiment, oviposition had no detectable effect on the growth rates of trees. In the second study, we measured oviposition on 12 common tree species across six sites. We then measured the annual growth rings of these trees for 3 years after the emergence. In this experiment, oviposition was correlated with a slightly reduced growth in the emergence year and following year when the data were analyzed together, but when tree species were examined individually there were no clear effects of oviposition on tree growth. These data suggest cicada oviposition has little effect on the radial growth of trees, particularly in comparison to other factors.
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 | 0.000 | 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".