Endophytic <i>Phomopsis</i> species: host range and implications for diversity estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foliar endophyte assemblages of teak trees growing in dry deciduous and moist deciduous forests of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve were compared. A species of Phomopsis dominated the endophyte assemblages of teak, irrespective of the location of the host trees. Internal transcribed spacer sequence analysis of 11 different Phomopsis isolates (ten from teak and one from Cassia fistula) showed that they fall into two groups, which are separated by a relatively long branch that is strongly supported. The results showed that this fungus is not host restricted and that it continues to survive as a saprotroph in teak leaf, possibly by exploiting senescent leaves as well as the litter. Although the endophyte assemblage of a teak tree growing about 500 km from the forests was also dominated by a Phomopsis sp., it separated into a different group based on internal transcribed spacer sequence analysis. Our results with an endophytic Phomopsis sp. reinforce the earlier conclusions reached by others for pathogenic Phomopsis sp., i.e., that this fungus is not host specific, and the species concept of Phomopsis needs to be redefined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".