Symptom expression in conifers infected with <i>Armillaria ostoyae</i> and <i>Heterobasidion annosum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crown symptoms and other aboveground variables were examined on 36 Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco.) (40209 years old), 46 white fir (Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl.) (36165 years old), and 97 ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.) (64220 years old) trees in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. Root systems of all trees were excavated to determine extent of root disease. Symptoms observed on infected trees, including reductions in height growth, changes in foliage characteristics, and crown dieback, worsened as the number of infected roots increased. Trees with aboveground symptoms had a significantly higher (p < 0.05) number of infected lateral roots than trees without symptoms. In mixed conifer stands on the Archuleta Mesa, Colo., four qualitative crown symptoms were used to accurately detect Armillaria ostoyae (Romagn.) Herink and (or) Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref. infection of Douglas-fir (21/22, or 95%) and white fir (19/28, or 68%). Similarly, 61% (48/79) of the A. ostoyae infected ponderosa pine trees on the Jemez site, N.M., were detected using the qualitative Thomson vigor rating system. Discriminate analysis, using more thorough variables and analysis, resulted in correct infection classifications of 82%, 85%, and 78% for Douglas-fir, white fir, and ponderosa pine, respectively, suggesting that aboveground variables are reasonable indicators of root disease.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".