MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042646077 · doi:10.1139/b03-025

Identity and phylogenetic relationships of ophiostomatoid fungi associated with invasive and native <i>Tetropium</i> species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Atlantic Canada

2003· article· en· W2042646077 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Karin Jacobs, Keith A. Seifert, Ken J. Harrison, Thomas Kirisits

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsOphiostomaLonghorn beetleBiologyBotanyPhylogenetic treeTaxonomy (biology)EcologyFungus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1999, red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) trees in a small area of the Halifax Regional Municipality in Nova Scotia, Atlantic Canada, were found to be infested and killed by Tetropium fuscum (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), a Eurasian species of longhorn beetle. We isolated and identified the fungi associated with T. fuscum in Halifax and compared them with ophiostomatoid fungi associated with Tetropium spp. on spruce in Europe. Ophiostoma species associated with Tetropium cinnamopterum Kirby (indigenous to and transcontinental in Canada) were also compared with those associated with T. fuscum. Strains were identified based on morphological and molecular characters. Ophiostoma piceae (Münch) Syd. &amp; P. Syd., Pesotum fragrans Mathiesen-Käärik, and Ophiostoma tetropii Mathiesen were the most frequently isolated species. Lack of type material for O. tetropii and discrepancies between the ex-type strain of O. tetropii and its original description prompted us to lectotypify this species and designate epitype material for it. The results suggest that O. tetropii was introduced with T. fuscum from Europe into Atlantic Canada.Key words: Ophiostoma tetropii, Tetropium fuscum, molecular phylogeny, invasive species.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations52
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207