Variation in virulence among four root-inhabiting Ophiostomatoid fungi on<i>Pinus taeda</i>L.,<i>P. palustris</i>Mill, and<i>P. elliottii</i>Engelm. seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ophiostomatoid fungi have been implicated in root disease of pines in the southeastern United States. To understand more about their virulence, inoculation studies were conducted on loblolly (Pinus taeda), longleaf (Pinus palustris), and slash pine (Pinus elliotii). One-year-old bareroot seedlings, after being planted and established for 11 weeks, were wound-inoculated with one of four prominent North American ophiostomatoid fungal species. After three months, a darkened lesion, extending from the point of inoculation was observed for all species. Grosmannia huntii (L. huntii) caused the greatest lesion and occlusion length in loblolly pine and slash pine. Leptographium procerum and L. terebrantis caused similar lesion and occlusion lengths and were the least virulent among the fungi tested. These studies indicate clear virulence differences among the four North American fungi. Grosmannia huntii, previously not known to be pathogenic, was observed causing significant damage compared with other well-known Leptographium species. Finally, lesion and tissue occlusion lengths were significantly smaller in longleaf pine for all fungal species when compared to loblolly and slash pine.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".