MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mountain pine beetle‐associated blue‐stain fungi are differentially adapted to boreal temperatures

2008· article· en· W2149654831 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adrianne V. Rice, Markus N. Thormann, David W. Langor

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPinus contortaMountain pine beetleTaigaBorealBotanyOverwinteringOphiostomaEcologyFungus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Mountain pine beetles (MPB) are the most serious pest of lodgepole pine in Canada and are likely to invade boreal jack pine forests. MPB vector three blue‐stain fungi, Grosmannia clavigera, Ophiostoma montium and Leptographium longiclavatum, which contribute to beetle success. Fungal survival at extreme boreal temperatures will contribute to their success in jack pine. Growth, sporulation and survival of the three fungi at −20 to 37°C were tested in vitro. Overwintering survival of G. clavigera and O. montium was assessed in vivo. All species grew at 5–30°C, with optimal growth at 20–25°C. Grosmannia clavigera and L. longiclavatum survived at −20°C, but O. montium died. Growth of G. clavigera and L. longiclavatum was inhibited at 30°C, but O. montium grew well. Grosmannia clavigera and O. montium overwintered in living pines. These results suggest that G. clavigera and L. longiclavatum were adapted to cold boreal winters but not hot summers, with the converse true for O. montium. Temperature tolerance varied among G. clavigera isolates. British Columbian and Californian isolates grew faster at 25°C than Albertan isolates. Isolates from Alberta and Idaho/Montana grew optimally at 20°C, while British Columbian and Californian isolates grew optimally at 25°C.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations67
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest PathologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207