Differences in defence responses of<i>Pinus contorta</i>and<i>Pinus banksiana</i>to the mountain pine beetle fungal associate<i>Grosmannia clavigera</i>are affected by water deficit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypotheses that responses to the mountain pine beetle fungal associate Grosmannia clavigera will differ between the evolutionarily co-evolved host lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) and the naïve host jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and that these responses will be influenced by water availability. G. clavigera inoculation resulted in more rapid stem lesion development in lodgepole than in jack pine; water deficit delayed lesion development in both species. Decreased hydraulic conductivity was observed in inoculated lodgepole pine seedlings, likely because of tracheid occlusion by fungal hyphae and/or metabolite accumulation. Drought but not inoculation significantly impacted bark abscisic acid levels. Jasmonic and salicylic acid were implicated in local and systemic responses of both species to G. clavigera, with salicylic acid appearing to play a greater role in jack pine response to G. clavigera than lodgepole pine. Water deficit increased constitutive levels and/or attenuated induced responses to G. clavigera for several monoterpenes in lodgepole but not jack pine. Instead, inoculation of well-watered but not water deficit jack pine resulted in a greater number of xylem resin ducts. These findings reveal mechanisms underlying differences in G. clavigera-induced responses between lodgepole and jack pine hosts, and how water availability modulates these responses.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".