MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946945251 · doi:10.3390/f10060481

Economics of Early Intervention to Suppress a Potential Spruce Budworm Outbreak on Crown Land in New Brunswick, Canada

2019· article· en· W2946945251 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Eric Ye Liu, Van Lantz, David A. MacLean, Chris R. Hennigar

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of New BrunswickUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsSpruce budwormOutbreakChoristoneura fumiferanaEconomic impact analysisCrown (dentistry)Environmental scienceEconomic analysisGeographyForestryToxicologyEcologyAgricultural economicsBiologyEconomicsMedicineLepidoptera genitalia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the potential economic impacts of future spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) (SBW) outbreaks on 2.8 million ha of Crown land in New Brunswick, Canada and compared an early intervention strategy (EIS) with foliage protection approaches. We coupled the Spruce Budworm Decision Support System (SBW DSS) with a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model to assess the impacts of EIS and foliage protection on 0%, 5%, 10%, and 20% of susceptible Crown (publicly owned) forest, under moderate and severe SBW outbreak scenarios. Cumulative available harvest supply from 2017 to 2067 was projected to be reduced by 29 to 43 million m3, depending upon SBW outbreak severity, and a successful EIS approach would prevent this loss. These harvest reductions were projected to reduce total economic output by $25 billion (CAD) to $35 billion. Scenarios using biological insecticide foliage protection over 20% of susceptible Crown forest area were projected to reduce losses to 6–17 million m3 and $0.5–4.1 billion. Depending upon SBW outbreak severity, EIS was projected to have benefit/cost ratios of 3.8 to 6.4 and net present values of $186 million to $353 million, both higher than foliage protection strategies. Sensitivity analysis scenarios of ‘what if’ EIS partially works (80% or 90%) showed that these produced superior timber harvest savings than the best foliage protection scenario under severe SBW outbreak conditions and generally superior results under moderate outbreak scenarios. Overall, results support the continued use of EIS as the preferred strategy on economic grounds to protect against SBW outbreaks on Crown land in New Brunswick.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207