The population structure of<i>Armillaria ostoyae</i>and<i>Armillaria sinapina</i>in the central interior of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The population structures of Armillaria ostoyae (Romagn.) Herink and Armillaria sinapina Bérubé & Dessureault were investigated at a study site near Williams Lake in the central interior of British Columbia. One hundred and twenty eight fungal isolates were examined from nine infection centers and individual genets were delineated using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis and somatic incompatibility tests. Six A. ostoyae genets ranging in size from 0.70 to >15 ha were detected. The population structure of A. ostoyae was consistent with a clonal reproductive strategy, and infection centers were occupied by single A. ostoyae genets or ramets thereof. Eighteen relatively small A. sinapina genets were detected, with infection centers being occupied by multiple genets. Armillaria sinapina appears to be more pathogenic to coniferous hosts than previously reported in the region. Armillaria ostoyae appears to initiate new infections of available substrate via airborne basidiospores at a lower frequency than A. sinapina. However once established, A. ostoyae can spread quite aggressively and capture significant amounts of secondary resources, while A. sinapina is unable to do so. The results of somatic incompatibility tests used to differentiate genets corresponded with the results of RAPD analysis, with only one minor discrepancy.Key words: Armillaria, RAPD, population structure, genet, ramet, clone.
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".