MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415618500 · doi:10.37099/mtu.dc.etdr/1998

RISK OF OAK WILT EXPANDING NORTHWARD: EXAMINING NITIDULIDAE VECTOR COMMUNITIES AND HOST PHENOLOGY BEYOND THE CURRENT DISEASE RANGE

2025· dissertation· W4415618500 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Kathleen Bershing

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationU.S. Forest ServiceMichigan Department of Natural ResourcesMichigan Technological UniversityCanadian Food Inspection AgencyU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsWilt diseaseRange (aeronautics)Host (biology)PhenologyPruningQuercus petraeaFagaceaeInvasive species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oak wilt is a fatal fungal pathogen to oak trees, caused by the fungus Bretziella fagacearum. This fungus targets oak species (Quercus spp.), where members of the red oak group (sect. Lobatae) are at greatest risk of mortality. Oak wilt is widespread throughout the eastern United States, currently present in 24 states. Recently in 2023, oak wilt was detected in trees for the first time in Canada. Although removed from the locations of the first Canadian detections, there is continual concern that the range of oak wilt is at risk for expansion northward. This is further evident due to the detections in Ontario, Canada, and by recent detections in 2024 in Upper Michigan, USA, in Marquette County. Pruning and harvest restrictions are currently in place from April 15th to July 15th in Michigan to reduce the risk of overland disease spread by the nitidulid vector beetles (Nitidulidae: Coleoptera), which are attracted to fresh wounds on susceptible oak trees. These current recommendations are based on growing degree days, which influence nitidulid flight activity and host tree conditions, with similar recommendations imposed in surrounding states (MN and WI) with oak wilt. To better understand the risk of oak wilt moving north, potential vector species behaviors with hosts and traps as well as forest stand environmental factors were assessed. We established a large collaborative sampling effort in the spring of 2023 and 2024 across 11 sites in Upper Michigan, Ontario, and New Brunswick, Canada. To assess the potential relationship between nitidulid activity in fresh wounds and variables such as spring bud phenology, nitidulids were collected in artificial oak wounds and baited flight traps to determine the timing of flight vs. wound entry, in addition to assess the communities of nitidulids found in fresh oak wounds (the most likely to be potential vectors) in areas north of the current disease range. In total, we collected almost 40,000 nitidulid beetles in wounds or traps between the two years across the wide geographic range of our study. Only two Nitidulidae species in neighboring states are confirmed as vectors that can carry the fungal spores and spread B. fagacearum to healthy trees. However, our research suggests that multiple species in different genera may be important vectors of the disease if it moves into northern regions. Additionally, a stronger relationship was observed between the timing of nitidulids entering wounds and spring bud phenology than with nitidulids entering baited flight traps. This suggests that bud break and spring host phenology may be a more precise time indicator when considering springtime transmission risk via overland spread. Models incorporating bud phenology in addition to growing degree days and site variables may provide the most accurate estimations for the timing of risk, allowing recommendations to be made for potential refinement of the high-risk period. These studies combined help us to be better prepared and understand the risks and factors associated with potential oak wilt transmission in areas north of the current disease range.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Insect Ecology and Management→French-language works237,207→