Radial growth impact of pine false webworm defoliation on eastern white pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of pine false webworm (Acantholyda erythrocephala (L.), Hymenoptera: Pamphiliidae) defoliation on the radial growth of mature eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) during an outbreak was assessed using a stem analysis comparison of two stands (defoliated vs. control) and increment cores collected from 21 defoliated stands and 5 control stands in northern New York State. Stem analysis revealed that whole-stem standardized annual volume increment (AVI) in a defoliated 67-year-old white pine stand (n = 10 sample trees) was reduced significantly below the AVI in the nondefoliated control stand (n = 8 sample trees) by the second year of moderate to heavy defoliation, and AVI was reduced by 97% by the fifth year of defoliation. No time lag between upper-bole and lower-bole impact was observed, and annual growth rings were more frequently missing or discontinuous at lower stem heights. The standardized latewood tracheid index was not reduced significantly below control stand levels until the third year of defoliation. Increment-core analysis revealed growth losses that corresponded with reported periods of defoliation in nearly all stands; sustained suppressions (516 continuous years) below a growth index of 0.5 occurred in over half of all defoliated stands. These results are discussed in relation to pine false webworm biology, comparisons with other conifer defoliators, environmental factors, and methods employed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".