MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148216999 · doi:10.1139/b07-088

Effects of fungal seed pathogens under conspecific and heterospecific trees in a temperate forest

2007· article· en· W2148216999 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Peter M. Kotanen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsGeneral Electric (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTsugaBiologyTemperate climateUnderstoryAceraceaeFungicideBotanyTemperate forestSaccharumEcologyAgronomyMapleCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the impacts of soil fungi on seeds of two eastern North American temperate-zone trees: Acer saccharum Marsh. (sugar maple) and Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr (eastern hemlock). Seeds of each species were buried at locations dominated by either conspecifics or heterospecifics. Half were protected with fungicide, and the net consequences for survival and germination were assessed. Net effects of fungicide usually were positive, indicating that pathogens affected seeds more strongly than any potential mutualists. Losses of A. saccharum to fungi were modest, and almost identical in areas dominated by itself versus areas dominated by T. canadensis. In contrast, fungal impacts on T. canadensis were strongly habitat-dependent: losses to fungi were high in T. canadensis-dominated sites, but not in A. saccharum-dominated sites. This result is consistent with an accumulation of host-specific pathogens, either by a direct feedback between T. canadensis and its fungal enemies, or indirectly through modification of the soil environment. Even though these two trees share similar habitats, responses to fungicide indicate that their seeds are affected very differently by the soil environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207