MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969430615 · doi:10.1093/njaf/24.2.138

Effects of Gypsy Moth Defoliation on Softwood and Hardwood Growth and Mortality in New Brunswick, Canada

2007· article· en· W2969430615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris R. Hennigar, David A. MacLean, Chris James Norfolk

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbies balsameaLymantria disparGypsy mothBalsamSpruce budwormMarshYellow birchHardwoodForestryBiologyChoristoneura fumiferanaSoftwoodGeographyPEST analysisEcologyHorticultureLepidoptera genitaliaBotanyTortricidaeWetland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first major European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) outbreak occurred in central New Brunswick, Canada, on over 3,000 ha of forestland, from 2001ߝ2003. The outbreak was severe enough to result in considerable landowner concern and a privately funded aerial insecticide spray program to protect trees. Defoliation was unexpectedly severe on several tree species thought to be resistant or immune, as indicated from studies in the northeastern United States. Fifty plots (564 trees) were established and measured for standard mensurational characteristics, defoliation, and annual tree mortality, and after the cessation of defoliation, 44 trees were destructively stem analyzed to determine growth patterns. Balsam fir (Abies balsamea [L.] Mill.) with defoliation of more than 75% sustained specific volume increment reduction averaging 55% and 25% mortality after 2 years of severe defoliation. Red oak (Quercus rubra L.) sustained about 40% growth reduction, similar to results of previous studies. However, white birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), with more than 75% defoliation for 2 years, sustained 43ߝ48% growth reduction, higher than in previous studies, and 4ߝ12% mortality. The gypsy moth range in Canada appears to be gradually expanding beyond previous climatic (cold winter temperature) limitations, and these results will help to predict future impacts.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthern Journal of Applied ForestrySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207