Necrophylactic periderm formation in the roots of western larch and Douglas‐fir trees infected with <i>Armillaria ostoyae</i>. I. The response to abiotic wounding in non‐infected roots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The sequence of events leading to necrophylactic periderm formation was studied throughout the year following the abiotic wounding of the non‐infected roots of 10‐ and 27‐year‐old western larch ( Larix occidentalis ) and 11‐ and 25‐year‐old Douglas‐fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ) trees that were infected with Armillaria ostoyae . The sequence was the same for both ages and species of trees. Wound repair was more rapid in the summer compared with the spring and autumn. Following cell hypertrophy, a zone of lignified impervious tissue was in the initial stages of formation within 10 days of wounding in the summer and 14 days in the spring or autumn. The new phellogen produced a layer of phellem three to four rows of cells thick after 20 days in the summer or 40 days in the spring. Modified cells abutting the inner boundary of the impervious zone frequently developed thick lignified abaxial walls and thin suberized adaxial walls. A typical exophylactic periderm in healthy root bark tissue of both western larch and Douglas‐fir consisted of stone phellem one to four rows of cells thick and a layer of thin‐walled phellem three to six rows of cells thick in western larch and two to three rows thick in Douglas‐fir, a single row of phellogen cells and one to three rows of phelloderm cells. Mature thin‐walled phellem cells had pigmented contents, red in western larch and light brown in Douglas‐fir. In response to wounding, 27‐year‐old western larch and 25‐year‐old Douglas‐fir developed necrophylactic periderms with annual bands of phellem. The bands included a layer of phellem that was six to 12 and nine to 15 rows of cells thicker than the layer of phellem observed in the respective naturally developed exophylactic periderms. Fifty days following wounding in the summer, stone phellem, one to three rows of cells thick, was observed in the necrophylactic periderm of 10‐year‐old trees. When fully developed, the necrophylactic periderm in 27‐year‐old western larch also had a layer of stone phellem three to five rows of cells thick in each band. Stone phellem development was only sporadic in 25‐year‐old Douglas‐fir. Wounds in the winter showed no signs of activity associated with repair until dormancy broke in the spring.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".