Fungi vectored by the introduced bark beetle <i>Tomicus piniperda</i> in Ontario, Canada, and comments on the taxonomy of <i>Leptographium lundbergii</i>,<i> Leptographium terebrantis</i>,<i> Leptographium truncatum</i>, and <i>Leptographium</i> <i>wingfieldii</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungi isolated from Tomicus piniperda (L.) galleries in infected trap logs, standing trees, and directly from insects were identified using morphological features and molecular data obtained from the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA region. Identified strains represented Leptographium wingfieldii Morelet, Leptographium procerum (Kendr.) Wingf., Leptographium lundbergii Lag. & Melin sensu Jacobs & Wingfield, Ophiostoma ips (Rumb.) Nannf., Ophiostoma minus (Hedg.) H. & P. Syd., and Sphaeropsis sapinea sensu lato. Leptographium wingfieldii is believed to be a potentially pathogenic introduced fungus, but sequence data suggest a possible connection between it and the teleomorph of Ophiostoma aureum (Robinson-Jeffrey & Davids.) T.C. Harrington (reported from British Columbia and the western United States). Our data also show that the ex-type culture of Leptographium terebrantis Barras & Perry, a species very similar morphologically to L. wingfieldii, also grouped with L. wingfieldii. We also identified strains of Leptographium truncatum (Wingf. & Marasas) Wingf.; this species has been synonymized with L. lundbergii, but our data indicate that these are distinct species, and therefore, the name L. truncatum should be reinstated. We also report the extended presence of L. procerum in Ontario. Previously viewed as a “southern” species frequently associated with pine-root decline diseases, it has been infrequently reported from New York state and but once each from Ontario and Quebec.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".