Spread of beech bark disease in the eastern United States and its relationship to regional forest composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beech bark disease (BBD) is an insect–fungus complex involving the beech scale insect ( Cryptococcus fagisuga Lind.) and one of two canker fungi. Beech scale was introduced to Halifax, Nova Scotia around 1890, presumably with the fungus Neonectria coccinea var. faginata Lohm. The disease has subsequently spread through a large portion of the range of beech. We used historical maps of the extent of the advancing BBD front (defined by presence of scale insects) in North America to estimate its rate of spread as 14.7 ± 0.9 km/year. This estimate did not account for stochastic “jumps” by the scale insects to several disjunct locations; therefore, this rate is a conservative estimate. Comparison of the year of scale colonization with beech density did not suggest a relationship between the scale spread rate and beech density. Our analyses also indicated that BBD has invaded less than 30% of regions where beech is present, but it has invaded most of the regions where beech is a dominant component of stands. Despite regional increases in beech mortality following invasion, considerable amounts of live beech remain in invaded areas. Moreover, the volume of beech has increased in most areas, though generally at lower rates than that observed for associated tree species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".