Cumulative Impact of Biotic and Abiotic Damage Agents on Lodgepole Pine Tree Form and Stand Structure in Southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not all pests kill trees or compromise final tree form; however, the cumulative effect of one or more damage agents over time can significantly limit final expectations at harvest, severely reducing or compromising wood quality and timber supply expectations going forward. This study highlights the effects of damage agents on young lodgepole pine insouthern British Columbia during the formative years of stand development. Over 4,300ntrees were monitored for up to three decades with over 40 damage agents recorded, causing significant repercussions on stocking, health, and form of potential crop trees. By the final assessment, density of potential crop trees had declined dramatically, with 84% affectedby one or more pests, and 63% of natural ingress dead. Most natural ingress was severely suppressed; thus, it is unlikely to fill in stand gaps caused by mortality and damage agents affecting larger potential crop trees. Lodgepole pine terminal weevil and western gall rust were the predominant damage agents influencing form and quality of potential crop trees. Lodgepole pine terminal weevil attacked up to 73% of pine and over 24% suffered multiple attacks. Results from this study emphasize the need for more short- and long-term monitoring of young stands to inform the development of forest policy and promote healthy, resilient new forests. KEYWORDS: lodgepole pine, damage agents, lodgepole pine terminal weevil, western gall rust, Southern British Columbia
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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".