MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119850557 · doi:10.1111/efp.12201

A review of Pinaceae resistance mechanisms against needle and shoot pathogens with a focus on the <i>Dothistroma</i>–<i>Pinus</i> interaction

2015· review· en· W2119850557 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Fraser, Jorge Martín‐García, Annika Perry, M. Shahjahan Kabir, Timothy J. Owen, Alejandro Solla, A. V. Brown, L. S. Bulman, Irene Barnes, Michael Hale, Marta W. Vasconcelos, Kathy J. Lewis, H. T. Doğmuş‐Lehtijärvi, Svetlana Markovskaja, Stephen Woodward, Rosie E. Bradshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsPinus radiataPinaceaeBiologyAgroforestryFungicideResistance (ecology)ShootBotanyPruningWoody plantSeed orchardPinus <genus>Agronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Dothistroma needle blight (DNB), caused by Dothistroma septosporum and Dothistroma pini, is a highly damaging disease of pine. DNB was originally considered a problem on exotic Pinus radiata plantations in the Southern Hemisphere and on both exotic and native pines in parts of North America in the 1960s. Since the mid‐1990s, however, DNB has increased in importance in various parts of the world, including Europe. On susceptible species, DNB causes premature needle drop, a loss of yield and, in some circumstances, mortality. In some areas, DNB is controlled by the application of copper‐based fungicides and silvicultural techniques, such as thinning and pruning. In New Zealand, there has also been a long history of selection of more resistant P. radiata for use in breeding programmes. A richer understanding of the resistance mechanisms involved in the Dothistroma–Pinus interaction will play a critical role in helping the development of sustainable integrated DNB management strategies. This review therefore summarizes current knowledge of defence mechanisms involved in the defence of Pinaceae against needle and shoot pathogens and identifies research gaps. Collaborative research efforts from countries directly or indirectly affected by DNB are rapidly generating new knowledge to address these gaps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest PathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207