<i>Armillaria</i> species on small woody plants, small woody debris, and root fragments in red pine stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of Armillaria on small woody plants, small woody debris, and root fragments was estimated in red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) stands in northeastern Minnesota. Soil core samples 10 cm in diameter, and extending to a depth of either 16 or 25 cm, were collected from 13 stands belonging to three age-classes. Half of the youngest stands had been treated using herbicide. Mycelial fans or rhizomorphs of Armillaria were observed on 13% of the small woody plants and isolated from 8% of them. Including small woody debris and root fragments, 38% of 0–16 cm deep samples had Armillaria. Armillaria was observed on 3% and isolated from 1% of individual substrate units from 0 to 25 cm deep samples. Within a single stand, 0%–67% of the samples and 0%–9% of the individual units had evidence of Armillaria. All but one isolate were Armillaria ostoyae (Romagn.) Herink. Herbicide-treated and untreated red pine stands had similar Armillaria incidence, and there was a trend of incidence inversely related to stand age-class. Large numbers of small woody plants, woody debris, and root fragments were found in red pine stands; varying percentages of these substrates were contributing to the survival of Armillaria and could also be serving as sources of root disease inoculum.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".