Comparative Efficacy of Chondrosterum purpureum and Chemical Herbicides for Control of Resprouts in Tanoak and Bay Laurel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The invasive Oomycete pathogen Phytophthora ramorum has killed millions of susceptible oak and tanoak trees in California and southern Oregon forests and is responsible for losses in revenue to the nursery industry through mitigation activities. In addition, infestation of forests in the United Kingdom by this organism has resulted in the destruction of many hectares of larch plantations. Resprouting stumps can be a reservoir for the inoculum of P. ramorum persisting on a site. In areas where the application of herbicides is not permitted, a biocontrol treatment would be an indispensable alternative. Treatment of stumps with the sap-rotting fungus Chondrostereum purpureum (Pers.) Pouzar has been shown to be an effective tool for the suppression of resprouting on several species, most notably red alder. In this project, the ability of C. purpureum to suppress resprouting was evaluated on stumps of two host species, tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) and California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica). Laboratory testing of three California isolates of C. purpureum indicated that the fungus can colonize bay laurel stems. Field trials were established near Brookings, Oregon, on tanoak and on bay laurel near Soquel, California. Early results of field testing showed that C. purpureum was able to colonize the stumps of tanoak following treatment and was found to occur naturally on tanoak logs and stumps. Formulations of C. purpureum appear to have some effect on reducing sprout survival in tanoak, but the most effective and rapid treatment for this host is the hack and squirt method of applying the herbicide imazapyr. Sprayed herbicide prevents sprouting on bay laurel, and there was evidence that resprouting was inhibited on stumps treated with C. purpureum. Over time, applications of C. purpureum may be a more permanent solution as the stumps begin to decay.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".