Artificial inoculation with <i>Armillaria ostoyae</i> in established conifers stressed by defoliation, planting, and thinning in Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Armillaria ostoyae (Romagnesi) Herink causes root disease in conifers of the northern hemisphere. Pathogenicity tests of established conifer trees with A. ostoyae, has never been done in the boreal forest. Seven forest plots were selected in Newfoundland; a black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) plantation, a naturally regenerated black spruce stand, a balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) stand with hemlock looper (Lambdina fiscellaria (Guen.)) defoliation, two balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae (Ratz.)) infested balsam fir stands (thinned and unthinned sites), a balsam fir sawfly (Neodiprion abietis Harris) defoliated balsam fir stand, and an artificially defoliated black spruce stand. Roots of fir and spruce trees were inoculated with two isolates of A. ostoyae and re-examined after 2 years. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in root infection within plots for different types of host stress to examine the response of trees to controlled inoculations of A. ostoyae. There was a statistically significant difference in number of infected roots between the two isolates used as inoculum. There was significantly more root response with severity of infection within all sites except both adelgid plots. A marginally significant relationship between tree health and root infection was present in the balsam fir sawfly plot. There was a significantly larger number of infected roots associated with rhizomorphs in the naturally regenerated black spruce stand and the artificially defoliated balsam fir stand. These results suggest that stress prediposes the host tree to root infection by A. ostoyae.
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".