MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148062691 · doi:10.22230/jem.2007v8n1a367

Environmental characteristics of mountain pine beetle infestation hot spots

2007· article· en· W2148062691 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Trisalyn Nelson, Barry Boots, Michael A. Wulder, Allan L. Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceCanadian Forest ServiceGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMountain pine beetleInfestationDendroctonusEcologySpotsPinus contortaSnagHost (biology)HabitatPersistence (discontinuity)Environmental scienceGeographyBiologyBark beetleHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combination of favourable temperatures and abundant host trees has resulted in a mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) epidemic over the majority of the lodgepole pine forests of British Columbia, Canada. Understanding temporal trends in the interactions between mountain pine beetle infestations and landscape characteristics can improve our understanding of beetle biology, inform modelling of future impacts, and support management. In this paper, we demonstrate a practical technique for characterizing spatial interactions between beetles and the environment. The locations with the highest-intensity infestations (hot spots) were identified using point data derived from annual helicopter-based surveys of beetle-infested pine, and a kernel density estimator. By examining the environmental characteristics associated with hot spots through time, an increased understanding of how the mountain pine beetle utilizes resources over large areas is generated. The effect of treatment on the persistence of hot spots is also explored. Results indicate that beetles intensely infest mature trees with a shift to younger trees over time. Hot-spot locations are most commonly associated with stands composed of 30–80% pine and almost always occur at elevations between 800 m and 1000 m. In the early years of an infestation, hot spots are typically found on warmer (south and west) aspects. As well, relative to non-treatment, any type of treatment reduces the persistence of hot spots the following year.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207