Impact of liming on the abundance and vigor of <i>Armillaria</i> rhizomorphs in Allegheny hardwoods stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abundance of rhizomorphs of Armillaria was characterized in 1995-1996 in 32 plots located in sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) stands in the Susquehannock State Forest (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.). All of the plots were thinned, and half of the plots were limed in 1985 when the plots were established. Frequency and abundance of Armillaria rhizomorphs in soil samples, on dead wood food bases (stumps, snags, fallen logs), and on the root collar of living sugar maples were determined in each plot. Rhizomorph vigor was evaluated by measuring their ability to colonize fresh striped maple (Acer pennsylvanicum L.) stem sections in the soil, or potato tubers in the laboratory. Isolates of Armillaria were obtained from rhizomorphs in the soil samples and species were determined by somatic incompatibility tests. Armillaria calvescens Bérubé & Dessureault was the major species present, representing about 66% of the isolates. Armillaria gemina Bérubé & Dessureault and Armillaria mellea (Vahl:Fr.) Kummer were also identified in the plots. Frequency of rhizomorphs in the soil, on food bases, abundance of rhizomorphs on root collars, as well as the proportion of rhizomorphs per plot that regenerated and (or) colonized fresh substrates were all correlated. However, abundance of ectotrophic rhizomorphs on the root collar was only weakly correlated with the other components of rhizomorph abundance and vigor. Frequency of the rhizomorphs as well as their ability to colonize fresh substrates were greater in plots either limed or with a high proportion of the basal area in sugar maple prior to thinning. By contrast, abundance of ectotrophic rhizomorphs on root collars was not affected by these factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".