MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183623681 · doi:10.1007/s11056-021-09865-y

Complexities underlying the breeding and deployment of Dutch elm disease resistant elms

2021· review· en· W3183623681 on OpenAlexafffund
Juan A. Martín, J. Domínguez, Alejandro Solla, C. M. Brasier, Joan Webber, Alberto Santini, Clara Martínez‐Arias, Louis Bernier, Luis Gil

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Forests · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto DemográficoSveriges LantbruksuniversitetGenome CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Regional Development FundGenome British ColumbiaGénome QuébecMinisterio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, Gobierno de EspañaMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsDutch elm diseaseBiologySoftware deploymentPlant disease resistanceAgroforestryGeographyBotanyComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dutch elm disease (DED) is a vascular wilt disease caused by the pathogens Ophiostoma ulmi and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi with multiple ecological phases including pathogenic (xylem), saprotrophic (bark) and vector (beetle flight and beetle feeding wound) phases. Due to the two DED pandemics during the twentieth century the use of elms in landscape and forest restoration has declined significantly. However new initiatives for elm breeding and restoration are now underway in Europe and North America. Here we discuss complexities in the DED ‘system’ that can lead to unintended consequences during elm breeding and some of the wider options for obtaining durability or ‘field resistance’ in released material, including (1) the phenotypic plasticity of disease levels in resistant cultivars infected by O. novo-ulmi ; (2) shortcomings in test methods when selecting for resistance; (3) the implications of rapid evolutionary changes in current O. novo-ulmi populations for the choice of pathogen inoculum when screening; (4) the possibility of using active resistance to the pathogen in the beetle feeding wound, and low attractiveness of elm cultivars to feeding beetles, in addition to resistance in the xylem; (5) the risk that genes from susceptible and exotic elms be introgressed into resistant cultivars; (6) risks posed by unintentional changes in the host microbiome; and (7) the biosecurity risks posed by resistant elm deployment. In addition, attention needs to be paid to the disease pressures within which resistant elms will be released. In the future, biotechnology may further enhance our understanding of the various resistance processes in elms and our potential to deploy trees with highly durable resistance in elm restoration. Hopefully the different elm resistance processes will prove to be largely under durable, additive, multigenic control. Elm breeding programmes cannot afford to get into the host–pathogen arms races that characterise some agricultural host–pathogen systems.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew ForestsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207