New hosts and differential susceptibility of five-needle pine species to Dooks needle blight (<i>Lophophacidium dooksii</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An outbreak of Dooks needle blight (Lophophacidium dooksii) in a five-needle pine genetic archive containing nine five-needle pine species and their interspecific hybrids provided an opportunity to observe the differential susceptibility of these pine species to the disease. Survey results indicated that four of the nine species in the archive were susceptible, including new hosts western white pine (Pinus monticola) and Himalayan blue pine (P. wallichiana), as well as previously reported hosts eastern white pine (P. strobus) and Macedonian pine (P. peuce). Japanese white pine (P. parviflora) and Korean pine (P. koraiensis) were seemingly not affected by the pathogen. While P. peuce and its interspecific hybrids showed the highest susceptibility and the heaviest needle damage, P. parviflora and its interspecific hybrids, including those with P. peuce, were rarely infected, indicating a potential strong and dominant genetic resistance to the pathogen. Pinus monticola and P. strobus showed similar levels of susceptibility and needle damage. Implications of these results to forest health in North America and the Balkans are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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".