MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016729494 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2019-0387

Riparian forest conditions along three northern Michigan rivers following Emerald Ash Borer invasion

2020· article· en· W3016729494 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Patrick J. Engelken, Deborah G. McCullough

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmerald ash borerFraxinusBasal areaRiparian zoneBuprestidaeAgrilusEcologyRiparian forestOleaceaeMarshUnderstoryBiologyForestryEnvironmental scienceGeographyWetlandCanopyBotanyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera, Buprestidae)) has killed millions of ash (Fraxinus spp.) trees since its 2002 detection in southern Michigan and Ontario. Effects of EAB in riparian forests, where ash species are often abundant, could influence terrestrial and aquatic conditions but are largely unknown. We surveyed vegetation and coarse woody material within and between three gaps in riparian forests along stretches of three rivers in northwestern Michigan. Gaps were originally dominated by Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh. and Fraxinus nigra Marsh., which comprised 46%–71% of total basal area, while ash comprised <10% of basal area in forests between gaps. More than 95% of overstory ash were killed by EAB. Fraxinus pennsylvanica saplings were abundant in gaps but F. nigra regeneration was minimal. Few tree seedlings occurred in gaps, which were dominated by dense sedge mats. Aerial imagery showed the EAB invasion has resulted in 3.6–7.1 canopy gaps·km −1 and dead ash account for 13%–21% of total basal area within 100 m of the banks of all three rivers. Long-term monitoring will be useful to evaluate persistence of ash, particularly F. nigra, the stability of riparian buffers, and potential indirect effects of EAB invasion on the adjacent aquatic systems.

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)0.001
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 score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207