Host responses in the xylem of trees after inoculation with six wood-decay fungi differing in invasivenessThis article is one of a collection of papers based on a presentation from the <i>Stem and Shoot Fungal Pathogens and Parasitic Plants: the Values of Biological Diversity</i> session of the XXII International Union of Forestry Research Organization World Congress meeting held in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, in 2005.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Host responses, i.e., formation of reaction and barrier zones, were studied in the xylem of Douglas-fir, beech, oak, and sycamore trees, after wounding and artificial inoculation with brown-, soft-, and white-rot fungi. The objective of this study was to determine whether strongly invasive wood-decay fungi trigger a higher magnitude of host response than weakly invasive fungi. Differences in active host response, observed microscopically, depended on wood anatomy. Restriction of discoloration and decay by reaction zones was primarily influenced by the content and distribution of parenchyma cells within the sapwood of each host. By contrast, barrier-zone anatomy showed similarities to the basic xylem structure of each host, except for some cell types that were either reduced in number or absent. Regardless of the decay fungus inoculated, individual trees of each host responded differently. With the exception of beech trees inoculated with the soft-rot fungus Kretzschmaria deusta (Hoffm.: Fr.) P. Martin and the white-rot fungus Trametes versicolor (L.: Fries) Pilát, host response appeared to be nonspecific, as the degree of fungal invasiveness did not influence the magnitude of host response within the xylem of investigated trees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".