Effects of wounding and fungal infection with <i>Armillaria ostoyae</i> in three conifer species. II. Host response to the pathogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Structural responses in the bark and wood were described following penetration by Armillaria ostoyae in the roots of 20‐ to 30‐year‐old Douglas‐fir, western hemlock and western redcedar trees. Tissue necrosis presumably caused by fungal exudates was commonly observed at inoculum contact. In Douglas‐fir and western hemlock, A. ostoyae interfered with the initiation of active defence mechanisms involving the development of a lignified zone of impervious tissue (IT), necrophylactic periderm (NP) formation and compartmentalization of infected woody tissue. Breaching of IT and NP barriers was frequent, particularly around the clusters of sclereid cells in western hemlock. In western redcedar, the IT zone was inconspicuous. Induced rhytidome formation occurred in western redcedar either simultaneously with or after completion of NP development. The formation of this tissue facilitated en masse sloughing of infected tissue from the surface of roots. In western redcedar, traumatic phloem resin ducts formed in tangential bands surrounding the margin of expanded lesions. Effective compartmentalization in western redcedar was achieved by a barrier zone comprised of a higher‐than‐average number of axial parenchyma that accumulated polyphenolic deposits. A combination of host‐mediated defence mechanisms in western redcedar resulted in a significantly higher frequency of effective resistance reactions than in western hemlock or Douglas‐fir.
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".