Reproductive consequences of a gall-inducing fungal pathogen (<i>Exobasidium vaccinii</i>) on <i>Rhododendron calendulaceum</i> (Ericaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the reproductive consequences of a gall-inducing fungal pathogen (Exobasidium vaccinii) on its host plant, Flame Azalea (Rhododendron calendulaceum (Michx.) Torr.) in southwestern Virginia. The percentage of infected plants ranged from 10 to 90% among the four study sites. There was a high degree of consistency in the pattern of prevalence between years at both the site and individual plant level within sites; plants and sites that showed high gall loads in 1997 were similarly infected in 1998. Infection rates and gall loads were higher in 1997 compared with 1998. All measures of reproduction were negatively affected by galls. Individuals infected in 1997 were less likely to flower the next season. Diseased inflorescences produced fewer flowers, smaller individual flowers, and had a lower probability of producing fruit. At the individual host level, the probability of fruit production was negatively correlated with the gall load on that individual. Finally, branches that were diseased in 1997 were more likely to die the following year, while healthy branches had a high probability of producing leaves and (or) flowers. Our results demonstrate that the fungal galls produced by E. vaccinii have immediate negative consequences to the reproductive process of R. calendulaceum.
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".