Distribution of foliar fungal endophytes of <i>Pinus strobus</i> between and within host trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of foliar fungal endophytes within and between needles and trees of Pinus strobus L. (white pine) is largely unknown. In this study, needles were collected in Muskoka, Ontario, plated, and scored for hyphal outgrowth of endophytes to observe distributional patterns. Individual trees displayed different levels of infection but branches within those trees had similar levels. There was a large difference in the infection levels between the two extant needle age-classes, with the youngest needles being virtually endophyte-free. Needles divided into four sections exhibited the most hyphal outgrowth from the distal portion and the least from the medial-proximal portion. Cultural morphotypes were primarily of the Lophodermium and Hormonema morphologies. Lophodermium occurred at all positions along the needle but Hormonema was restricted to the proximal and distal portions. Infrequently occurring fungi of diverse morphotypes were found at all four needle positions. A separate experiment compared levels of endophyte infection between Muskoka trees and trees growing in an urban area (Guelph, Ontario). Needle pieces from Guelph hosts had low rates of infection (0.02%) compared with needle pieces from Muskoka hosts (66.5%). Thus, for white pine, foliar endophyte distribution is patchy within and between needles, trees, and locations, possibly reflecting differences in microhabitat or infection success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".