Resistance to<i>Gremmeniella abietina</i>(European race, large tree type) in introduced<i>Pinus contorta</i>and native<i>Pinus sylvestris</i>in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the resistance of Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm. ex Watts to large tree type (LTT) Gremmeniella abietina (Lagerberg) Morelet of the European race, seedlings of P. contorta and Pinus sylvestris L. were planted in gaps of an infected 40-year-old P. sylvestris stand in 2005 and assessed for symptoms in 2006–2007. In 2007, 45% and 32% of the P. contorta and P. sylvestris seedlings were infected, respectively. However, mortality was lower and recovery was better in the P. contorta seedlings. The mean infection length on surviving seedlings was significantly shorter in P. contorta (4 cm) compared with P. sylvestris (10 cm), and 47% of the P. contorta seedlings had developed new leader shoots in 2007 compared with 19% of the P. sylvestris seedlings. Histopathological examinations of the transition zone of infected shoots showed that P. contorta, as well as P. sylvestris, produced ligno-suberized boundaries extending from healthy needle bases transversally across the shoots. Together with areas of phenol-filled cells, these boundaries completed the compartmentalization of the invaded outermost parts of a majority of the infected seedlings. Our results indicate that P. contorta is more resistant to LTT G. abietina than P. sylvestris.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".