Eastern hemlock (<i>Tsuga canadensis</i>) regeneration in the presence of hemlock woolly adelgid (<i>Adelges tsugae</i>) and elongate hemlock scale (<i>Fiorinia externa</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae Annand) is an invasive hemipteran that poses a major threat to eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrière) forests in the United States. We conducted three surveys over a five-year period that assessed the density of hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) and a second invasive pest, the elongate hemlock scale (EHS; Fiorinia externa Ferris), overstory hemlock mortality, and hemlock regeneration in ~140 hemlock stands (mean size, 44 ha; range, 7–305 ha) within a 7500 km2 north–south transect of southern New England (USA). In each stand, we rated HWA and EHS density on 50 hemlock trees using a 0–3 scale (0, none; 1, 1–10 organisms/m branch; 2, 11–100 organisms/m branch; 3, >100 organisms/m branch). Data on the presence or absence of regeneration were taken in 2005; in 2007 and 2009, we quantitatively assessed regeneration by counting the number of hemlock seedlings in three 16 m2 plots per stand. In 2005, 81% of sampled stands had HWA, 72% had EHS, and 66% had hemlock regeneration. In 2007, 86% of sampled stands had HWA, 79% had EHS, and 46% had hemlock regeneration. In 2009, 91% of stands had HWA, 87% had EHS, and 37% had hemlock regeneration. The proportion of stands with hemlock regeneration declined 46% between 2005 and 2009, and hemlock seedling density declined 71% between 2007 and 2009. A best-fit model selection algorithm found that this decrease was inversely correlated with stand-level adelgid density. There was no correlation between the change in seedling density and stand-level density of the elongate hemlock scale. The apparent decline in regeneration suggests that the ecosystem-level changes currently occurring in southern New England may be difficult to reverse.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".