Soil drainage class, host tree species, and thinning influence host tree resistance to the spruce budworm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thinning has frequently been recommended for reducing damage caused by spruce budworm ( Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens)). It is believed that this technique enhances the mechanisms of resistance of trees (antibiosis and tolerance) to this insect. However, various research projects that have focused upon effects of this silvicultural tool on host tree resistance have yielded equivocal results. A better understanding of the effects of this technique on host tree resistance and budworm performance can help us to reduce the impact of this insect while respecting the ecological integrity of the forests. We examined the effects of stand commercial thinning and drainage class on balsam fir ( Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.)), white spruce ( Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), and black spruce ( Picea mariana (Mill.) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb.) resistance to spruce budworm 3 years after thinning. We wanted to determine if this technique could be used as preventive tool against insect defoliators. Field-rearing experiments of spruce budworm were conducted, together with foliar chemical analyses, along a gradient of stand thinning intensity (0% (control), 25% (light), and 40% (heavy)) and drainage class (rapidly drained, class 2; mesic with seepage, class 3; subhygric, class 4; and hydric, class 5). Despite having favoured budworm performance (high pupal mass) and winter survival, heavy thinning increased balsam fir and white spruce tolerance (amount of current-year foliage remaining) to a level that resulted in overall increased host tree resistance to the insect. This response was caused by strong foliage production in reaction to the thinning treatment. Light thinning did not increase host tolerance, except in balsam fir and white spruce that were growing on hydric and subhygric sites, respectively, demonstrating the importance of this variable in determining host tree resistance. These results suggest that heavy thinning may be used as a preventive measure during the low-density phase of budworm populations, since this technique increased foliar production in balsam fir and white spruce, rendering them more resistant to attack by this insect.
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 | 0.000 | 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".