Northern range limit mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak dynamics and climate interactions in mixed sub-boreal pine forests of British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insect outbreaks are some of the most destructive processes of forest change with long-term economic and ecological effects that can be severe. For native insects that have co-evolved with their host forests it is important to develop and implement management strategies that are consistent with the basic ecology of the ecosystem being affected. This requires a sound ecological understanding of the disturbance regime and its function, which can only be gained through long-term stand histories appropriate to the scale of the process. This is becoming increasingly important in light of changing climate conditions which have already influenced disturbance regimes and the spatial distribution of insect ranges with unknown consequences. The objectives of this study were to develop a long-term record of mountain pine beetle (MPB) outbreaks near the northern limit of the species' range and to examine the interacting factors driving that disturbance regime. Using a combination of dendrochronological methods to reconstruct stand and outbreak history together with long-term local and large-scale climate data, I developed an integrated model of outbreak dynamics for north-central BC where little is known about the role of MPB in forest stand dynamics or the influence of climate on outbreak development. Using a 200-year outbreak reconstruction I determined that host susceptibility and mortality patterns had distinctly different characteristics than those described further south. Climate was more important than forest structure in determining outbreak frequency and severity, and persistent warm temperature anomalies, including the large-scale climate patterns driving these trends, were the most important direct climate drivers of outbreak development. Over short time scales, host stress preceded outbreaks, but long-term periods of vigorous tree growth were also important for outbreaks to develop. Differences between this study and others suggest that outbreak risk management and predictive models must consider regio
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".