Fungal screening for biological removal of extractives from<i>Eucalyptus globulus</i>wood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood extractives cause production troubles during pulp and paper manufacture. The potentiality of fungal strains for biotechnological removal of extractives from Eucalyptus globulus Labill. wood is evaluated here. First, a survey of fungi present in eucalypt woodlands in western Spain was carried out, and 90 species, including fungi strictly associated with eucalypt trees, were collected. Then, a total of 33 basidiomycetes, 21 ascomycetes, and 19 conidial fungi (including some strains from culture collections) were compared in terms of their capacity to decrease the acetone extract of eucalypt wood. High extractive removal (50-70% of initial content) was obtained with Ophiostoma, Mollisia, and Pleurotus species, as well as with Funalia trogii (Berk. in Trog) Bond. & Singer, Melanotus hepatochrous (Berk.) Singer, and Paecilomyces sp. Microscopic observation of the degraded wood revealed a correlation between extractive degradation and removal of spherical deposits in wood rays. Moreover, when extractive biodegradation was analyzed by gas chromatography - mass spectrometry it was found that some of the basidiomycetes were able to remove both free and esterified sitosterol (75-100% degradation by Poria subvermispora Pilát, Phlebia radiata Fr., F. trogii, and Bjerkandera adusta (Willd.) P. Karsten), which has been identified as a major constituent of pitch deposits in eucalypt pulps, whereas the action of ascomycetes was mainly limited to hydrolysis of the sitosterol esters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".