Evaluation of Resistance to the Beech Scale Insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga) and Propagation of American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) by Grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scions collected from diseased trees and from those without symptoms of beech bark disease (BBD) were cleft-grafted in 2003 and 2004 onto rootstock of unknown resistance to BBD. Grafting success varied among genotypes and year (30% in 2003 and 12% in 2004), and improved with increasing rootstock diameter. Successful grafts were used to test resistance to the beech scale insect, Cryptococcus fagisuga (the initiating agent of BBD) by introducing eggs onto the bark of scions and allowing time for the emergence of all developmental stages of the insects. Significantly fewer insects colonized scions collected from putatively resistant trees than those collected from diseased trees. In some cases, where egg placement overlapped a portion of the rootstock, insect colonies developed on the rootstock but not on the scion collected from resistant trees. Occasionally, scions from putatively resistant trees were colonized, whereas some of those from diseased trees were not. When scions from putatively resistant trees were heavily colonized, only adult insects were present and no eggs or other life stages of the insect were found. The findings indicate that the extent of resistance to the scale insect (hence to BBD) ranges from partial to total resistance.
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".