Ethanol synthesis by anoxic root segments from five cedar species relates to their habitat attributes but not their known differences in vulnerability to <i>Phytophthora lateralis</i> root disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethanol synthesis by anoxic root segments from Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murray bis) Parl.); yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach); Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb.); western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don), and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens (Torr.) Florin ) was compared to determine whether the amounts that they produced during flooding could contribute the known greater vulnerability of Port Orford cedar to infection by Phytophthora lateralis Tucker & Milbrat. Roots were incubated in water at 5, 15, 25, and 35 °C for 14 days with periodic sampling. After 12 h of anoxic stress, Atlantic white cedar and yellow cedar roots produced equal quantities of ethanol that were about two times more than produced by the other three species, which did not differ from one another. The roots remained anoxic for 14 days, with ethanol concentrations increasing 6 to 11 times depending on the species. After 14 days, Atlantic white cedar remained the highest ethanol producer at two to three times more than the other species, whereas incense cedar yields were the lowest. Yellow cedar, western redcedar, and Port Orford cedar had intermediate levels of ethanol. The similarity in responses of Port Orford cedar to the other species is strong evidence that ethanol is not an important contributor to its known greater vulnerability to P. lateralis infection. In general, root incubation temperature affected ethanol synthesis similarly for all species. Increases in temperature from 5 to 15 °C or 15 to 25 °C doubled the ethanol yields at 12 h. Literature ratings of anaerobic tolerance for these cedars were compared with ratings based on their ethanol yields after 12 h or 14 days of anoxia. The latter rating appears to more closely correspond with the cedars associations to wet, mesic environments and their likelihood of experiencing anoxia via flooding.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".