Rhizomorph growth habit, saprophytic ability and virulence of 15 <i>Armillaria</i> species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The rhizomorph branching habit in soil, competitive saprophytic ability and virulence were determined for 15 species of Armillaria from Europe, North America and Australia and New Zealand. In soil, rhizomorphs of northern hemisphere species branched either monopodially or dichotomously, whereas all five species from Australia and New Zealand branched dichotomously. The dry weight of rhizomorphs produced in soil by isolates of a species and by species was very variable. Species with monopodially branched rhizomorphs had significantly higher saprophytic colonization scores than dichotomously branched species and scores were significantly higher in Garry oak than Douglas‐fir segments and in fresh than autoclaved segments. The damage to Douglas‐fir seedlings caused by isolates of most dichotomously branched species was significantly greater than that caused by monopodially branched species. Species producing dichotomously branched rhizomorphs were more aggressive than monopodially branched species, killing 80% (vs. 17%) of seedlings that died during the first year of the 2‐year experiment.
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) | 0.001 | 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".