Thinning of mature lodgepole pine stands increases scolytid bark beetle abundance and diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thinning of forests has been used as a management tool for bark beetles; however, its effects have only been studied in a limited number of bark beetle species, and the causes of its effectiveness remain unclear. We sampled the abundance and diversity of secondary bark beetles in mature thinned and unthinned lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud., stands (ca. 840 and 2500 trees/ha, respectively) near Whitecourt, Alberta. We examined the factors that might influence any differences in abundance and diversity between thinned and unthinned stands. Breeding habitat for secondary bark beetles (fresh coarse woody debris) was much more abundant in thinned stands than in unthinned stands in the first year after thinning but then returned to background levels. Temperature and wind speeds were higher in thinned stands in all 3 years after thinning. The abundance of striped ambrosia beetles, Trypodendron lineatum Olivier, and pine engravers, Ips pini (Say), captured in baited funnel traps and window traps remained significantly higher in thinned stands than in unthinned stands in all 3 years after thinning, while the diversity of bark beetles remained constant or increased over this period. Our data suggest that the persistent changes in microclimate following thinning, especially increased wind, were partly responsible for thinned stands having more secondary bark beetles than unthinned stands.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".