The foliar fungal endophytes of <i>Citrus limon</i> in Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungal endophytes associated with Citrus limon (L.) Burm., were investigated. Culture of surface-sterilized leaves from two orchards of lemon trees in Tucumán, located in northwestern Argentina, revealed the presence of endophytic fungi in all leaves examined. The colonization frequencies were 69.7% and 72.3% at the two sampled sites, and a total of nine taxa were isolated. Eight of the taxa had relative frequencies of >2% in at least one sample. The number of isolates was significantly lower in the spring. The assemblage composition at each site and sampling time was similar. Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. in Penz., responsible for anthracnose, was consistently dominant. Another pathogenic fungus of Citrus spp., Guignardia citricarpa Kiely was also recovered as an endophyte. Scanning electron micrographs of cut uncultured and cultured leaf surfaces, seen in transverse section, showed intercellular fungal hyphae in parenchyma cells No penetration of host cells by either fungus was observed. This is the first report on fungal endophytes in leaves of lemon plants in Argentina.Key words: endophytic fungi, lemon, colonization, scanning electron microscopy.
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) | 0.001 | 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".