MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972020684 · doi:10.1111/nph.16173

Tree defence and bark beetles in a drying world: carbon partitioning, functioning and modelling

2019· review· en· W2972020684 on OpenAlexaff
Jianbei Huang, Markus Kautz, Amy M. Trowbridge, Almuth Hammerbacher, Kenneth F. Raffa, Henry D. Adams, Devin W. Goodsman, Chonggang Xu, Arjan J. H. Meddens, Dineshkumar Kandasamy, Jonathan Gershenzon, Rupert Seidl, Henrik Hartmann

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBark beetleEcologyClimate changeBark (sound)EcosystemTree (set theory)Vegetation (pathology)Disturbance (geology)Forest ecologyBiogeochemical cycleBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drought has promoted large-scale, insect-induced tree mortality in recent years, with severe consequences for ecosystem function, atmospheric processes, sustainable resources and global biogeochemical cycles. However, the physiological linkages among drought, tree defences, and insect outbreaks are still uncertain, hindering our ability to accurately predict tree mortality under on-going climate change. Here we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda for addressing these crucial knowledge gaps. Our framework includes field manipulations, laboratory experiments, and modelling of insect and vegetation dynamics, and focuses on how drought affects interactions between conifer trees and bark beetles. We build upon existing theory and examine several key assumptions: (1) there is a trade-off in tree carbon investment between primary and secondary metabolites (e.g. growth vs defence); (2) secondary metabolites are one of the main component of tree defence against bark beetles and associated microbes; and (3) implementing conifer-bark beetle interactions in current models improves predictions of forest disturbance in a changing climate. Our framework provides guidance for addressing a major shortcoming in current implementations of large-scale vegetation models, the under-representation of insect-induced tree mortality.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations212
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207