Clone by isolate interaction in the hybrid poplar – <i>Septoria musiva</i> pathosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fourteen clones of hybrid poplar were inoculated with 19 isolates of Septoria musiva Peck under greenhouse conditions to determine the magnitude of the clone, isolate, and clone × isolate interaction effects. Septoria musiva isolates were collected from five geographic areas, two symptoms (canker and leaf spot), and two host types (native species and hybrid poplar). The hybrid poplar clones were classified by parent type ( Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh., Populus laurifolia Lebed. × Populus nigra L., and P. deltoides × (P. laurifolia × P. nigra)). There were no significant differences among geographic areas (p = 0.443), symptoms (p = 0.842), or hosts (p = 0.304) of origin for the 19 isolates nor significant differences among the three parent types (p = 0.089). Clone, isolate, and clone × isolate interaction effects were all significant, accounting for 65%, 15%, and 18%, respectively, of the explained variation. These results indicate that clones rather than parent types should be the focus of resistance screening programs and that the pathosystem should be stable given the relatively small clone × isolate interaction. These results also indicate that a single isolate should be sufficient for preliminary screening of disease resistance in hybrid poplars.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".