Resistance and tolerance in juvenile interior Douglas‐fir trees <i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i> var. <i>glauca</i> artificially inoculated with <i>Armillaria ostoyae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Plants utilize two general strategies to cope with pathogen attack. They either limit or resist the pathogen (termed ‘resistance’) or they cope with the disease by surviving and growing (termed ‘tolerance’). Both strategies tend to increase plant fitness; however, there are possible costs, trade‐offs and interactions associated with each strategy. This study focused on five half‐sib interior Douglas‐fir families [ Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco] that were putatively classified as either resistant or susceptible to Armillaria ostoyae in a previous greenhouse study of seedling families challenged with A. ostoyae . We compared their survival rates in the greenhouse study with results of juvenile trees from the same five families that were artificially inoculated in field conditions. Both resistance and tolerance appeared to be operating in the field test trees, and a possible trade‐off between resistance and tolerance was detected. Significant differences were detected among the five families for stem radial growth following infection at the tree root collar. Compared with the putatively susceptible families, resistant families had smaller lesions and lower proportional root collar girdling. Tolerant families generally had larger lesions but demonstrated better growth when diseased than resistant families. One tolerant family that was a good survivor in the greenhouse survival study presented vertically shaped lesions that were large in area but had greatly reduced proportional root collar girdling. While a second family showed tolerant traits in the field study, its poor survival in the greenhouse study agreed with the large horizontally spreading lesions associated with high root collar girdling in the field study trees. Survival rankings of the five families in the greenhouse study mostly agreed with results from the field study based on the proportion of collar girdling among families. These host responses are discussed with respect to stability, quantity and quality of stands and products.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".