Assessing Potential Risks of White Pine Blister Rust on Western White Pine from Increased Cultivation of Currants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introductions of white pine blister rust (WPBR, causal fungus: Cronartium ribicola J.C. Fischer) to eastern and western North America before 1915 caused such extensive damage that western white pine ( Pinus monticola D. Don) was essentially abandoned as a manageable forest tree species for over 60 years. Recent results from WPBR resistance selection and breeding programs, and from field trials of tree spacing, pruning and bark excision treatments have supported efforts to increase establishment and to intensively manage western white pine. Western white pine is a desirable component in many forested areas because of its faster growth and much higher value compared to many other associated tree species. It also has a low susceptibility to armillaria root disease caused by Armillaria ostoyae (Romagnesi) Herink and laminated root rot, caused by Phellinus weirii (Murr.) Gilb. Some regulations, e.g., Forest Practices Code of British Columbia (BC) Act, require anyone who harvests timber on provincial forestland and uses western white pine for reforestation to either plant genetically resistant western white pine stock or prune susceptible young trees for protection. Risks of increased WPBR associated with increased commercial cultivation of gooseberries and currants ( Ribes L.) have yet to be determined. However, major threats appear to include 1) increase in local amounts of spores for nearby infection of pines; and 2) possible introductions or development of new, virulent races of C. ribicola , particularly from eastern to Pacific northwestern North America. In view of these possible threats, we recommend that existing regulations and legislation should be amended, or possibly new measures enacted, to permit propagation and commercial cultivation only of varieties of Ribes that are immune or highly resistant to WPBR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".