A comparative study of endophytic fungi in needles, bark, and xylem of<i>Pinus tabulaeformis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endophytic fungi associated with Chinese oil pine ( Pinus tabulaeformis Carr.) from two distinct climatic sites, Fenghuangshan and Lingyuan in northeast China, were investigated. A total of 2065 fungal isolates were recovered from 4320 tissue segments consisting of needles, bark, and xylem from 30 mature trees for each site. Twenty-one fungal taxa were identified; the remaining 205 isolates (11% of total isolates) did not sporulate and could not be identified. There were higher overall colonization and isolation rates of endophytic fungi from the Fenghuangshan than from the Lingyuan site. At the Fenghuangshan site, the colonization and isolation rates significantly increased with the age of the needles and xylem, but not of the bark. At the Lingyuan site, the colonization and isolation rates significantly increased with the age of the xylem; however, there were no significant differences between 2- and 3-year-old needles and bark, except that they both contained fewer endophytes in 1-year-old by comparison with 2- and 3-year-old needles and bark. Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler, Phoma sp.1, Phomopsis archeri B.C. Sutton, and Leptostroma sp. were the dominant taxa in the bark and needles. There was a high Sorenson’s coefficient (0.89) of endophyte composition similarity between the Fenghuangshan and Lingyuan sites. We conclude that some fungi show a degree of tissue recurrence or specificity and that the composition of endophyte assemblages is not greatly influenced by geographical or climatic factors.
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".