MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120516367 · doi:10.1139/x02-061

Pine needle rust effect on <i>Pinus banskiana</i> in response to interspecific plant competition and telial host density

2002· article· en· W2120516367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. D. Mihail, Johann N. Bruhn, Timothy R. Meyer, Frederick W. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterspecific competitionLoamPinus <genus>BiologyCompetition (biology)BotanyHorticultureForestryEcologySoil waterGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three compartments differing in soil texture were established in 1994 to examine interspecific competition using Pinus banskiana Lamb. and 11 competitive species including Aster macrophyllus L. Each competitive species was established in six planting densities in combination with P. banksiana. Since P. banksiana and A. macrophyllus are hosts of the pine needle rust (PNR) fungus, Coleosporium asterum (Diet.) Syd., conditions were inadvertently created for examining the effect of PNR on tree growth under interspecific competition. Tree size was measured in 1995 and 1996. PNR was assessed in 1996 (incidence) and 1997 (severity). Pinus banksiana root collar diameter, stem length, and crown diameter were significantly lower in the loam soil texture compartment compared with the clay or sand compartments. Using the same metrics, P. banksiana size was reduced as competitor density increased in 1995 and 1996, particularly for A. macrophyllus. Further, P. banksiana size was significantly reduced by PNR infection in 1996. Excluding the plots with A. macrophyllus, P. banksiana infected in 1996 were significantly larger than disease-free trees in the clay and sand compartments, suggesting that larger trees may represent larger targets for spore deposition. In 1996, PNR incidence was significantly correlated with proximity to A. macrophyllus plots.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesFrench-language works237,207