MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166042008 · doi:10.1094/phyto-96-0526

Bioprotection of Spruce Logs Against Sapstain Using an Albino Strain of <i>Ceratocystis resinifera</i>

2006· article· en· W2166042008 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Chantal Morin, Philippe Tanguay, Colette Breuil, Dian-Qing Yang, Louis Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytopathology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCeratocystisBiologyField trialFungusStrain (injury)BotanyHorticultureOphiostomaAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We recovered a spontaneous albino strain from ascospores of Ceratocystis resinifera, a sapstain fungus that grows deeply and rapidly in freshly felled conifer trees. This albino strain, named Kasper, was tested for its ability to prevent discoloration of spruce sapwood caused by wild-type sapstain fungi and compared with Cartapip 97, a commercially available biological control agent of sapstain in lodgepole pine and red pine logs. In a laboratory trial, Kasper reduced sapstain of white spruce logs as much as 94.4% and was more efficient than Cartapip 97. In field trials conducted in an area north of Québec City, Kasper reduced sapstain of black spruce as much as 80%. In three of four field trials, Kasper was significantly more efficient than Cartapip 97 in reducing sapstain development. The exception was encountered in a 2003 trial conducted in a sawmill yard where Kasper did not reduce sapstain. In a field trial conducted in western Canada, at Aleza Lake forest near Prince George, Kasper almost totally prevented the development of sapstain, even after 24 weeks. These results suggest albino strains derived from C. resinifera might be an additional source of potential biocontrol agents against sapstain.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytopathologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207