<i>Cryptosporiopsis</i>species isolated from the roots of aspen in central Alberta: identification, morphology, and interactions with the host, in vitroThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Poplar Research in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptosporiopsis Bubák & Kabát isolates were obtained for the first time from roots of apparently healthy aspen seedlings in Alberta. These isolates were similar in all the major morphological features previously used to separate Cryptosporiopsis species, but sequencing data of the ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 region indicated that they were separated into two groups, one belonging to Cryptosporiopsis ericae Sigler and the other to Cryptosporiopsis radicicola Kowalski & Bartnik. Scanning electron microscopy of ex-type cultures and selected isolates from aspen roots revealed that C. ericae and C. radicicola differed in morphogenesis and structure of conidiomata: those of C. ericae were either synnematous or sporodochial, whereas those of C. radicicola possessed a peridium-like mycelial envelope bearing amorphous adhesive material. Phialides in the hymenium of C. radicicola were also embedded in amorphous matrix material but such material was absent in C. ericae. Microscopic examination of artificially inoculated aspen roots indicated that both species are endophytes of the host. Hyphal penetration by C. ericae was only occasional and confined to the host epidermis, whereas C. radicicola was more aggressive and its hyphal ingress extended to the cortical region.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".