MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088175285 · doi:10.1139/x06-194

Pathogenicity of <i>Leptographium longiclavatum </i>associated with <i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i> to <i>Pinus contorta</i>

2006· article· en· W2088175285 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sang‐Won Lee, Jae Jin Kim, Colette Breuil

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsPinus contortaDendroctonusInoculationBiologyOphiostomaPhloemBotanyMountain pine beetleHorticultureWoody plantBark beetleTwigFungusEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the pathogenicity of Leptographium longiclavatum sp. nov., a recently reported fungal associate of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (Hopkins, 1902). In September 2003, 30 lodgepole pines (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var latifolia Engelm. ex S. Wats) between 98 and 130 years old were inoculated with L. longiclavatum, the known pathogen Ophiostoma clavigerum, or an agar control. Inoculation densities consisted of 200 and 800 points/m 2 in a 60 cm wide band at breast height. The inoculated trees were examined in July 2004, 9 months after inoculation. Five of six trees inoculated with L. longiclavatum at high density (800 points/m 2 ) developed yellow crowns, while the foliage of all trees inoculated at low density (200 points/m 2 ) remained green. Both O. clavigerum and L. longiclavatum generated significantly longer necrotic lesions in the phloem and more occlusions in the sapwood than in the agar controls. In addition, the sapwood colonized by both fungi had a reduced moisture content compared with controls. These results suggest that L. longiclavatum is pathogenic and may contribute to the mortality of mountain pine beetle infested pines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207