Limited Differences in Insect Herbivory on Young White Spruce Growing in Small Open Plantations and under Natural Canopies in Boreal Mixed Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In managed boreal forests, both plantations and natural regeneration are used to re-establish a cohort of conifer trees following harvest or disturbance. Young trees in open plantations generally grow more rapidly than under forest canopies, but more rapid growth could be compromised by greater insect damage. We compared insect damage on white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, Pinaceae) growing in plantations with naturally regenerated trees under mature forest canopies in boreal forests (Québec, Canada). We selected ten sites in the naturally regenerated forest and in small, multispecies plantations and sampled ten young trees of 2.5–3 m (per site) in late summer 2020 and again in early and late summer 2021. We compared overall rates of herbivory, galls (adelgids), damage by the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana, Clemens), and defoliation from sawflies. Overall, insect herbivory damage remained at similarly low levels in both habitats; an average of 9.3% of expanding shoots were damaged on forest trees and 7.7% in plantation trees. Spruce budworm damage increased from 2020 to 2021 and remained higher in under-canopy trees, but damage rates were negligible at this early stage of the outbreak (1.5% in forest vs. 0.78% of buds damaged on plantation trees). While damage due to galls was higher in plantations, the overall low level of damage likely does not pose a significant impact on the growth or mortality of young trees.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".