MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002630335 · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110167

Mountain pine beetle outbreak duration and pine mortality depend on direct control effort

2020· article· en· W3002630335 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélodie Kunegel‐Lion, Mark A. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsOutbreakMountain pine beetleInfestationBark beetlePopulationEcologyAbundance (ecology)BiologyEnvironmental scienceBark (sound)GeographyDemographyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficacy of direct control methods in bark beetle outbreaks is a disputed topic. While some studies report that control reduces tree mortality, others see little effect. Existing models, linking control rate to beetle population dynamics and tree infestations, give insights, but there is a need to take into account the environment spatial variability and its impact on beetle life cycle. Here, we use natural variability found in a carefully monitored and controlled infestation to simulate outbreak dynamics under different control effort and to explore the impact of control on outbreaks suppression and tree mortality. Our semi-empirical predictive model of the number of infested trees as a function of ecological and environmental variables is coupled to a simulation model for infestation dynamics. We show that even a little control can have a major impact on the number of infested trees after several years of sustained effort. However, a moderate control of 60% is required to reduce the beetle population on the long term. Furthermore, a control rate of 69%-83% is needed to achieve outbreak suppression in under 13 years depending on the abundance of incoming flights from outside sources.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental ManagementSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207