Influence of water stress on Dutch elm disease symptoms in <i>Ulmus minor</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response of Ulmus minor Miller to Dutch elm disease was observed under combined heavy and light watering regimes. Ramets of two clones, planted in pots, were divided into two groups and each group underwent a different watering regime: heavy initial watering followed by light watering and light initial watering followed by heavy watering. The changeover in watering took place on May 29, 1998, 15 days after plants had been inoculated with a Ophiostoma novo-ulmi Brasier spore suspension. Greater wilting was evident in elms subjected to the heavy initial watering followed by light watering regime than those subjected to light initial watering followed by heavy watering. Non-inoculated plants subjected to heavy initial watering followed by light watering developed large vessel diameters during the heavy watering period and showed approximately 20% wilting during the light watering period. Non-inoculated plants subjected to light initial watering followed by heavy watering developed vessels with smaller diameters during the light watering period, and showed no wilting. The evidence suggests that large vessel formation prior to inoculation associated with water stress after infection increases Dutch elm disease symptoms. The role of water stress in the development of Dutch elm disease symptoms and the implications for elm resistance and breeding are discussed.Key words: field elm, Dutch elm disease, water relations, xylem vessels, breeding, Ophiostoma novo-ulmi.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".