MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097408897 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0486

Long-term impact of a leaf miner outbreak on the performance of quaking aspen

2013· article· en· W2097408897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diane Wagner, Patricia Doak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerbivoreBiologyShootTaigaLeaf minerBasal areaHorticultureInvertebrateWoody plantAgronomyBotanyEcologyPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aspen leaf miner, Phyllocnistis populiella Cham., has caused widespread and severe damage to aspen in the boreal forests of western North America for over a decade. We suppressed P. populiella on individual small aspen ramets using insecticide at two sites near Fairbanks, Alaska, annually for 7 years and compared plant performance with controls. Insecticide treatment successfully reduced leaf damage by P. populiella during most years and had little effect on herbivory by externally feeding invertebrates. By the end of the study, control ramets had suffered a reduction in height and girth relative to treated ramets and to the original, pretreatment size. Control ramets produced smaller leaves during some years and, after 7 years, produced fewer total shoots and leaves than ramets sprayed with insecticide. Treatment did not affect mortality, but at the warmer of the two sites, ramets sustaining ambient levels of leaf mining were significantly more likely to die back to basal sprouts than those treated with insecticide. We conclude that a decade of P. populiella outbreak has caused strongly negative effects on aspen development and the production of aboveground tissues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207