Infection of advance regeneration of Norway spruce by <i>Heterobasidion parviporum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of Heterobasidion root rot in the advance regeneration of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) was studied in nine stands at four different localities in southern Finland. The mean age of the unthinned advance regeneration on the 17 sample plots ranged from 14 to 44 years. On infested plots, the proportion of Norway spruce infected by Heterobasidion varied from 22.2 to 75.0% (mean 52.5%) in the overstory and from 1.8 to 68.2% (mean 21.1%) in the advance regeneration. The corresponding values on healthy-looking control plots were 06.7% (mean 5.9%) and 1.33.9% (mean 2.4%), respectively. Of the 138 Heterobasidion genets identified, 98.5% belonged to Heterobasidion parviporum Niemelä & Korhonen and 1.5% to Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref. s.s. The incidence of Heterobasidion root rot in advance regeneration was positively correlated with the mean size and age of the advance regeneration and the proportion of infected trees in the overstory and negatively correlated with the regeneration density. Vegetative spread through root contacts from overstory trees to the surrounding regeneration accounted for at least 53% of the Heterobasidion infections in the advance regeneration. The origin of the rest of the infections in advance regeneration remained unclear, but at least part of them may have started from spore infection on injured or dead roots. Our results suggest that, on sites infected by H. parviporum, advance growth of Norway spruce should not be used for regeneration even though the spruces look healthy and show no external signs of infection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".