Mountain pine beetle spread in forests with varying host resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last few decades, mountain pine beetle (MPB) have spread into novel regions in Canada. An important aspect seldom captured in models of MPB spread is host resistance. Lodgepole pine, the predominant host of MPB, varies in resistance across the landscape. There is evidence for a genetic component of resistance, as well as evidence that hosts in areas where MPB has not been present historically are at risk of increased susceptibility. In addition to the spatially varying resistance of the primary host species, the eastward spread of MPB has brought them into jack pine forests. Host resistance in jack pine remains uncertain, but experiments indicate jack pine could be a suitable host. We develop a model of pine beetle spread that links pine beetle population dynamics and forest structure and resistance. We find that beetle outbreaks in the model are characterized by large transient outbreaks that move through the forest. We show how the speed of these outbreaks changes with host resistance and find that biologically plausible values for host resistance are able to stop the wave from advancing. We also find that near the threshold of resistance where the wave is able to advance, small changes in host resistance dramatically decrease the severity of the outbreak. These results indicate that planting trees selected for higher MPB resistance on the landscape may be able to slow or even stop the local spread of MPB. In terms of further eastward spread, our results indicate future outbreaks may move more quickly and be more severe if novel lodgepole pine hosts are indeed more susceptible to beetle attacks, although more research is needed into the susceptibility of jack pine. • Mountain pine beetle has spread into novel regions in Canada. • Further spread depends on host susceptibility. • Spatially explicit mechanistic model to predict spread speed and severity. • Spread speed and severity can increase quickly with host resistance. • Biologically plausible values of host resistance can slow or stop local spread.
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".