MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581205664 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0291

Modeling the impacts of hemlock woolly adelgid infestation and presalvage harvesting on carbon stocks in northern hemlock forests

2017· article· en· W2581205664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey John Krebs, Jennifer Pontius, Paul G. Schaberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorthern Research StationU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsTsugaEnvironmental scienceForestryBiologyEcologyAgronomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better understand the potential impact of the invasive hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA, Adelges tsugae Annand) and presalvage activities on carbon (C) dynamics in northern stands of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr.), we used the Forest Vegetation Simulator and Forest Inventory and Analysis data to model C storage and successional pathways under four scenarios: presalvage harvesting; HWA-induced mortality; presalvage harvesting plus HWA-induced mortality; and no disturbance (control). Our simulation showed that all treatments differed in total C storage in the short term, with HWA-induced mortality providing the highest total C storage due to regeneration and ingrowth of replacement species combined with retention of standing and downed deadwood. At the end of the 150-year simulation, all disturbance scenarios had significantly lower total C than the control. The cumulative net C gain was lower for the two presalvage scenarios than for the HWA scenario, indicating that allowing HWA to progress naturally through a stand may result in the least impact to long-term C sequestration and net C storage. While differences were not significant on low hemlock density stands, impacts to the estimated 267 000 ha of northeastern forests where hemlock is dominant could result in conversion to red maple (Acer rubrum L.) and a net loss of over 4 million metric tons of potentially sequestered C over the next 150 years.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207