Comparison of effectiveness of wood decay fungi maintained by annual subculture on agar and stored in sterile water for 18 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fourteen isolates of basidiomycete decay fungi (12 species) were maintained for 18 years on agar slants transferred annually and also stored as mycelium-agar cores under cold sterile water without subculture. Isolates stored by each method were evaluated for decay effectiveness using a standard laboratory accelerated soil-block decay test. Effectiveness was measured by mean percent mass loss of wood blocks. There was no significant difference (p < or = 0.05) in decay effectiveness between storage methods for 12 of the fungus isolates tested. For the 2 fungi that showed a significant difference in the amount of decay with respect to storage method, 1 fungus (Fomitopsis lilacinogilva) produced more decay by the strain maintained as an agar slant, while the other fungus (Trametes versicolor) produced more decay by the strain stored in sterile water. Results suggested that storage under sterile water is an easy and effective method to store isolates of decay fungi for long periods, but as with any microbial storage method, careful monitoring of isolates upon revival is necessary.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".