MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020585637 · doi:10.1139/b05-009

The foliar fungal endophytes of <i>Citrus limon</i> in Argentina

2005· article· en· W2020585637 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Estela Liliana Durán, Leonardo Daniel Ploper, J. C. Ramallo, Rosely Ana Piccolo Grandi, Ágata C Hupper Giancoli, João Lúcio de Azevedo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional de TucumánNorthwestern University
KeywordsBiologyEndophyteHyphaFungusBotanyPlant use of endophytic fungi in defensePyriculariaColonizationParenchymaHorticultureMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 &gt;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. &amp; 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207