Phosphite does not stimulate a wounding response in Eucalyptus marginata seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphite is used to protect plants from the soilborne plant pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi. While several studies have reported a stimulation of defence mechanisms in response to the infection of plants treated with phosphite, the effect of phosphite on abiotic wound repair is unknown. The aim of this histological study was to detail the effects of phosphite on previously undescribed wound repair in Eucalyptus marginata, an important forest tree of south-western Australia, which responds to phosphite treatment. Clonal lines of young plants of E. marginata without a periderm, considered resistant and susceptible to P. cinnamomi, were sprayed with phosphite and the green stems were wounded with liquid nitrogen, where a small area of the vascular cambium was damaged. Transverse hand sections showed phosphite had no effect and there was no genotypic difference on wound responses in E. marginata. Wound periderm and a ligno-suberised boundary zone formed within 7 days. The generation of new phellogen derivatives occurred and by 14 days the vascular cambium was almost fully restored with wound wood formed by 21 days. In the absence of a pathogen, phosphite did not interfere with the quality and speed of wound repair in the E. marginata clones suggesting that wound repair will not be affected when phosphite is used as a prophylactic treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".