MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385689328 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2023-0113

Poor regeneration of pine after mountain pine beetle attack in colder boreal regions of Canada

2023· article· en· W4385689328 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Victor J. Lieffers, Julie Benedik, Ken Stadt, S. Ellen Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of Alberta
FundersForest Resource Improvement Association of AlbertaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates Bio SolutionsfRI Research
KeywordsUnderstoryMountain pine beetleRegeneration (biology)DendroctonusBorealEcologyPinus contortaTaigaBiologyForestryCanopyEnvironmental scienceGeographyBark beetleBark (sound)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent expansion of mountain pine beetle (MPB, Dendroctonus ponderosae) from its native range in western North America into northern boreal pine forests in Alberta, Canada has resulted in conditions for tree regeneration that are dramatically different from those after wildfire, the predominant natural disturbance in these forests. We assessed natural regeneration post-MPB for northern boreal lodgepole pine sites in Alberta, Canada via intensive surveys of small plots at 33 severely attacked pine stands and using data from 205 permanent sample plots representing various site types and levels of MPB mortality. We used model selection to identify factors explaining regeneration. Overall, pine regeneration was very poor 6–9 years post-MPB; only 42% of the 33 intensively surveyed plots and only 9% of the 205 permanent plots had pine seedlings. This poor regeneration is attributed to high levels of cone serotiny in these populations, unsuitable regeneration microsites due to undisturbed litter or feathermoss layers, and competition from the residual canopy and understory vegetation. Other species (aspen, birch, poplar, and black and white spruce) were found on most sites, either as post-attack regeneration or regeneration established in advance. Without intervention, many of these stands will likely transition away from pine, to broadleaf and other conifer species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→