Distribution, hosts, and site relationships of <i>Armillaria</i> spp. in central and southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the species, geographic distribution, host range, site relationships, and impacts of Armillaria in central and southern Ontario. Rhizomorphs and infected wood samples were collected at 110 of 111 sites. Six species were identified by polymerase chain reaction or diploidhaploid pairings. Armillaria gallica Marxmuller & Romagn. was most commonly isolated and had the broadest host range. It was seldom isolated from conifers but often from oaks. It was the species most often found on moist sites and showed strong preference for calcareous soils. Armillaria calvescens Bérubé & Dessureault was rarely isolated from conifers but often from maples, where it commonly caused butt rot. It was found most often on coarse loamy or fine, well-drained, fresh sites. Armillaria ostoyae (Romagn.) Herink. had the second broadest host range. It was seldom found on sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) but dominated on conifers, especially on dryfresh, rapidly drained sandy to coarse loamy sites. It was not found on sites with finer soils. Armillaria sinapina Bérubé & Dessureault and Armillaria gemina Bérubé & Dessureault were found in more northerly parts of the study area on noncalcareous sites. Armillaria sinapina often caused butt rot and was often found on poorly drained sites. Armillaria gemina was found only on hardwoods. Armillaria mellea (Vahl:Fr.) Kummer s.st. was found on dead hardwoods at four locations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".