MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982985628 · doi:10.1139/x01-223

Variation in the root bark phenolics/sugar ratio of Douglas-fir grown in two plantations in northern Idaho

2002· article· en· W1982985628 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer H. Myszewski, Lauren Fins, James A. Moore, Marc Rust, Peter G. Mika

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSugarBark (sound)BotanyBiologyArmillariaHorticultureChemistryFood scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies have linked high phenolics/sugar ratios in the inner root bark tissue of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) to decreased susceptibility to Armillaria spp. While these studies have identified environmental factors that influence root chemistry, none have examined whether the phenolics/sugar ratio is genetically controlled. In this study, we investigated the effects of genetics and environment on the root bark chemistry of 20 families of 15-year-old Douglas-fir planted in two sites in northern Idaho. Only sugar concentrations varied significantly among families, but site was a significant source of variation for phenolics and the phenolics/sugar ratio. Family × site interactions were significant for the concentrations of all measured root bark compounds as well as for the phenolics/sugar ratio. Phenotypic correlations between height and the phenolics/sugar ratio and between height and sugar concentrations were not significant. However, families with superior height growth and below-average sugar concentrations could be found at both sites. Should a high phenolics/sugar ratio prove effective in selecting genotypes for resistance to Armillaria infection, these results suggest that gains could be made more efficiently by selecting for low sugar concentrations.

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 score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207