Response of balsam poplar to inoculation with<i>Marssonina balsamiferae</i>from Minnesota, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Leaf spots of poplar (Populus) species and hybrids in North America commonly are caused by threeDrepanopezizaspecies (previously referred to by their asexual morph names in genusMarssonina). A fourth species,Marssonina balsamiferae, is known only from herbarium specimens and was described from balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) leaves collected in 1966 in Manitoba, Canada. Balsam poplar leaves collected in 2014 in Minnesota, USA bore spots with acervuli and conidia consistent with those ofM. balsamiferae, and isolates were obtained from these leaves. Conidial morphology and analysis of nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences distinguished the Minnesota strains from the very common leaf spot pathogen of poplars in the northcentral region of the USA,Drepanopeziza brunnea. Inoculation of rooted balsam poplar cuttings with conidia ofM. balsamiferaestrains from Minnesota resulted in necrotic leaf spots. Acervuli bearing conidia consistent with those ofM. balsamiferaewere observed on symptomatic leaves, and the fungus was reisolated from infected tissues. Contemporary recognition of existence and pathogenicity ofM. balsamiferae, including presence in the USA, should prompt further investigation of its geographic distribution and relationships with hosts and related fungal 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".