Fluorescent pseudomonad population sizes baited from soils under pure birch, pure Douglas-fir, and mixed forest stands and their antagonism toward<i>Armillaria ostoyae</i>in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between forest stand composition in southern interior British Columbia and fluorescent pseudomonad bacteria populations was investigated using seedling bioassays. The objectives of this study were to (i) compare the relative population sizes of fluorescent pseudomonads baited from soils in pure paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), pure Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), and mixed stands of the two species and (ii) determine if fluorescent pseudomonads from these soils have inhibitory effects against the root pathogen Armillaria ostoyae (Romagn.) Herink in vitro. Soil from birch stands supported four times more pseudomonads on seedling baits than soil from Douglas-fir stands, with the mixed stands intermediate. Soil from young stands yielded twice as many rhizosphere pseudomonads as soil from mature stands. Pseudomonad population size was positively correlated with percent cover and density of birch, and negatively correlated with basal area of Douglas-fir, percent cover of Douglas-fir, and carbon/nitrogen ratio of the soil. Greater than 50% of the fluorescent isolates reduced radial growth of A. ostoyae by more than 20% and greater than 90% reduced biomass of the fungus in dual culture tests. Cell-free bacterial culture filtrates added to the growth medium also reduced growth of A. ostoyae. This study provides evidence that paper birch provides a more favorable environment for fluorescent pseudomonads than Douglas-fir and suggests a mechanism by which paper birch can positively influence the susceptibility of managed forest stands to Armillaria root disease.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".