Mistletoe ecophysiology: host–parasite interactionsThis review is one of a collection of papers based on a presentation from the<i>Stem and Shoot Fungal Pathogens and Parasitic Plants: the Values of Biological Diversity</i>session of the XXII International Union of Forestry Research Organization World Congress meeting held in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, in 2005.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mistletoes are highly specialized perennial flowering plants adapted to parasitic life on aerial parts of their hosts. In our discussion on the physiological interactions between parasite and host, we focus on water relations, mineral nutrition, and the effect of host vigour. When host photosynthesis is greatest, the xylem water potential of the host is most negative. To maintain a flux gradient and avoid stomatal closure and wilting, the mistletoe must tolerate a more negative water potential than the host. Succulent leaves enhance water storage and allow mistletoes to rehydrate before their hosts rehydrate. Mistletoe infections may disrupt the host stomatal control system, causing early and oscillating closure of host stomata, thereby diminishing host photosynthetic gain. Mistletoes lack the active uptake of minerals of a typical plant root system and rely upon the haustorium to connect with the host for the essentially one-way flow of photosynthates and nutrients from host to parasite. Modest growth rates, tolerance, succulence, and rapid leaf turnover are some means by which mistletoes avoid mineral deficiency or excess. We propose high concentrations of some mobile elements in the mistletoe by comparison with the host result not from active uptake, but from the inevitable accumulation by a parasite that utilizes host phloem sap. The relationship between host condition and mistletoe performance varies by situation and over time. In some cases, the host can outgrow the mistletoe, but favorable host status can also accelerate mistletoe growth. A better understanding of the mistletoe–host interaction can be utilized in improved management of infested forest plantations for resource production as well as for conservation of biodiversity and endangered species.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".