Defoliation of Norway Spruce by Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and Protection Using Bacillus thuringiensis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) has been widely planted beyond its natural range due to its fast growth rate and valuable wood. In Québec, over 200 million seedlings have been planted since 1964. Several of these plantations are now facing a new potential threat, i.e., spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)) infestations. Despite contrasting results, Norway and white spruce (P. glauca [Moench] Voss) apparently sustain a similar degree of budworm defoliation. The main study objective is to quantify defoliation in Norway spruce caused by spruce budworm. We also evaluate the efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner spp. kurstaki (Btk) in protecting this exotic host tree. Annual defoliation was assessed in plantations of Norway, white, and black spruce (P. mariana [Mill.] BSP) between 2018 and 2022 in the Bas-Saint-Laurent region. Additional surveys were conducted in Norway and white spruce plantations in the Gaspésie and Côte-Nord to evaluate Btk efficacy. We show that both species exhibit similar defoliation levels, though Norway spruce sometimes sustains greater damage (e.g., 35% vs. 10% in 2019). Btk formulations showed low efficacy in protecting Norway spruce foliage (≥49.32% defoliation in treated plantations). Further studies are needed to understand factors influencing Btk efficacy on this host.
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".