Cambial injury in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta): mountain pine beetle vs fire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both mountain pine beetle (MPB) Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins and fire leave scars with similar appearance on lodgepole pine Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm. that have never been compared microscopically, despite the pressing need to determine the respective effects of MPB and fire injury on tree physiology. We analysed changes in wood formation in naturally caused scars on lodgepole pine, and tested the hypotheses that (i) MPB and fire injury elicit distinct anomalies in lodgepole pine wood and (ii) anomalies differ in magnitude and/or duration between MPB and fire. Mountain pine beetle and fire injury reduced radial growth in the first year post-injury. Otherwise, radial growth and wood density increased over more than 10 years in both MPB and fire scars. We found that the general increase in radial growth was of greater magnitude (up to 27%) and of longer duration (up to 5 years) in fire scars compared with MPB scars, as shown in earlywood width. We also observed that the increase in latewood density was of greater magnitude (by 12%) in MPB scars, but of longer duration (by 4 years) in fire scars. Crystallinity decreased following MPB and fire injury, while microfibril angle increased. These changes in fibre traits were of longer duration (up to 4 years) in MPB scars compared with fire scars, as shown in microfibril angle. We found no significant changes in carbon and nitrogen concentrations. In conclusion, we stress that reduced competition and resistance to cavitation play an important role alongside cambial injury in influencing the type and severity of changes. In addition, more research is needed to validate the thresholds introduced in this study. Our findings serve as a foundation for new protocols to distinguish between bark beetle and fire disturbance, which is essential for improving our knowledge of historical bark beetle and fire regimes, and their interactions.
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".