Differences in needle morphology between blister rust resistant and susceptible western white pine stocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Needle traits were evaluated on three groups of western white pine (Pinus monticola Dougl.) seedlings: four open-pollinated families that ranked high for the "reduced needle lesion frequency" type of resistance to blister rust; four blister rust susceptible families; and two bulk lots from a seed orchard selected for blister rust resistance. No statistically significant differences were found for most traits in pairwise comparisons among the three groups. However, needles of susceptible families had significantly wider and larger stomata (greater area) than did those of resistant families and seed orchard lots; their stomata were also rounder (smaller ratio of stomatal length to width) than those of the seed orchard lots. Needles of the resistant stocks were significantly shorter than those from seed orchard bulks. Contact angles of water droplets on adaxial needle surfaces were also significantly larger on resistant families compared with the other genetic stocks. Results suggest the possibility of some threshold stomatal size and (or) critical stomatal shape related to infection by the blister rust fungus, Cronartium ribicola J.C. Fisch. ex Rabenh., and possible differences among the groups in wax chemistry and (or) surface textures, both of which may alter behavior of blister rust germ tubes and (or) be altered by blister rust infection.
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".