Diversity of Endophytic Fungi Isolated from <i>Gentiana rhodantha</i> and Screening for Biocontrol Stains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to clarify the composition of endophytic fungi in Gentiana rhodantha in colonization tissues with four Liupanshui sampling sites (Fenghuang Zhongshan, Nankai Shuicheng, Yangmei Shuicheng and Xinchang Liuzhi) in Liupanshui, strains were isolated with health leaf, stem and root and identification based on morphological characteristics and ITS sequence analysis. As well as screening for biocontrol stains by the dural culture method on PDA plates with Sclerotinia sclerotionrum . The results showed that G. rhodantha concealed rich fungal diversity, the colonization rate and isolation rate of endophytic fungi reached 49.38% and 61.25% respectively. 294 strains of endophytic fungi were obtained from 480 explant tissue segments of G. rhodantha and belonging to 2 phylum, 5 classes, 14 orders and 32 genera; of which Fusarium and Colletotrichum were comparatively advantageous taxa in endophytic fungi of G. rhodantha , and the species contained occupied 9.86% and 8.84% of the total endophytes respectively．According to the calculation results, Xinchang LZ in four sites and stem in three tissues showed optimum degrees of diversity, evenness and dominance respectively. 23 strains of endophytic fungi with inhibitory activities against S. sclerotionrum by the dural culture method; Amomg them, the inhibition rate of Botryosphaeria sp. R022, R021, Phomopsis sp. S002, Colletotrichum sp. S028 and Fusarium sp. L031 were higher than 70% and showed the best inhibitory potential.
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 | 0.001 | 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".