Factors affecting the mortality of winter moth in the lower mainland of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.), were monitored at four sites in Richmond, British Columbia, between 1989 and 1992. Populations peaked in 1990 on both blueberry and birch and declined with an eventual population crash in 1992.Parasitism by Cyzenis albicans (Fall.) fluctuated between years at each site. Parasitism reached its highest levels on both birch (ca. 55%) and blueberry (ca. 35%) in 1991. Pupa predation was the most important stage specific mortality factor throughout the four years. In 1992, the year of population crash, larval mortality was high. Trends in "death of pupae due to unknown causes" were linked to larval mortality and are suggested to result mainly from poor foliage quality. An unusually early spring in 1992, may have led to the observed increases in these two mortality factors. The incidence of viral or other diseases among the populations are low. Generally, pupal predation peaked in 1990 (ca. 90%) and then declined. Pterostichus spp., Amara spp., Harpalus affinus and subsoil beetle larvae are implicated as important predators. The levels and trends in predation were similar at sites with very different assemblages and abundances of beetles. There were no differences in the abundances of beetles at each site between 1991 and 1992. However, many of the important predatory species declined in 1992. An examination of the possible interactions between C. albi cans and generalist predators is made. The increased range of pupal sizes in the soil, due to the presence of C. albi cans may be a mechanism for inducing a numerical response among generalist predators. However, simultaneous population declines at sites with low levels of C. albicans indicate that winter moth outbreak and decline in North America may be induced by a number of different factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".