Bordered pit and ray morphology involvement in elm resistance to <i>Ophiostoma novo-ulmi</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to identify differential anatomical features between Ulmus pumila L. and Ulmus minor Mill. clones resistant to Dutch elm disease and U. minor clones susceptible to Dutch elm disease, with a focus on the intervascular pits and medullary rays. Resistant elms showed lower mean values than susceptible elms for pit membrane diameter, pit aperture area, pit membrane abundance per vessel-wall area, ray width, and ray tangential area. A principal component analysis of the parameters measured revealed slight differentiation between species but clearly grouped U. minor clones according to their susceptibility group. In comparison with susceptible elms, the pit structure observed in resistant elms may limit passive fungal spread within the sapflow, lower the probability of fungal cells passively reaching pit membranes, and reduce the vulnerability of the xylem to cavitation. Similarly, the ray structure observed in the resistant elms is likely to reduce the amount of easily accessible nutrients available for fungal growth as well as the rate of radial colonization in comparison with susceptible elms. Examination of the principal component loadings suggested that susceptible U. minor clones were mainly characterized by enhanced values of pit membrane abundance per vessel-wall area relative to resistant U. minor 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".