MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968701735 · doi:10.1139/x04-178

Ophiostomatoid and basidiomycetous fungi associated with green, red, and grey lodgepole pines after mountain pine beetle (<i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i>) infestation

2005· article· en· W1968701735 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jae‐Jin Kim, Eric Allen, Leland M. Humble, Colette Breuil

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsOphiostomaMountain pine beetlePinus contortaBiologyDendroctonusBotanyInfestationBark beetleEcologyFungusCurculionidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mountain pine beetle (MPB) is a major concern for lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm.) forests in British Columbia, Canada. MPB and the ophiostomatoid staining fungi for which they serve as vector have a close, mutualistic relationship. In this work, we determined which fungi colonized MPB-killed standing trees with green, red, and grey crowns and quantified how rapidly the fungi stained and reduced the moisture content of sapwood. Green trees were mainly colonized by Ophiostoma clavigerum (Robinson-Jeffrey &amp; Davidson) Harrington, Ophiostoma montium (Rumbold) von Arx, Ophiostoma nigrocarpum (Davidson) De Hoog, Ophiostoma minutum (Olchow. &amp; Reid) Hausner, and unknown Leptographium species. In red and grey pines (2 and 3 years after the original MPB attack, respectively), the frequency of the original fungal colonizers decreased, and other sapstaining fungal species were encountered. Among basidiomycetous fungi, decay fungi were rarely present in green trees but were isolated more frequently in red and grey trees. The frequency and the type of decay fungi isolated varied between harvesting sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207