Aerial spraying of bacterial insecticides to control spruce budworm defoliation leads to reduced carbon losses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spruce budworm (SBW) outbreaks are a major natural disturbance in boreal forests of eastern North America. During large‐scale infestations, aerial spraying of bacterial insecticides is used to suppress local high‐density SBW populations. While the primary goal of spraying is the protection of wood volume for later harvest, it should also maintain carbon stored in trees. This study provides the first quantitative analysis of the efficacy of aerial spraying against SBW on carbon dynamics in balsam fir, spruce, and mixed fir–spruce forests. In this study, we used the TRIPLEX‐Insect model to simulate carbon dynamics with and without spray applications in 14 sites of the boreal forest located in various regions of Québec. We found that the efficacy of aerial spraying on reducing annual defoliation was greater in the early stage (<5 yr since the outbreak began) of the outbreak than in later (5–10 yr since the outbreak began) stage. Our results showed that more net ecosystem productivity is maintained in balsam fir (the most vulnerable species) than in either spruce or mixed fir–spruce forests following spraying. Also, average losses in aboveground biomass due to the SBW following spraying occurred more slowly than without spraying in balsam fir forests. Our findings suggest that aerial spraying could be used to maintain carbon in conifer forests during SBW disturbances, but that the efficacy of spray programs is affected by host species and stage of the SBW outbreak.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".