Visible versus actual incidence of Armillaria root disease in juvenile coniferous stands in the southern interior of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between aboveground symptoms and belowground incidence of Armillaria ostoyae (Romagn.) Herink on conifers in 13- to 24-year-old stands was investigated at five sites in each of the dry, moist, and wet climatic regions in the Nelson forest region, British Columbia. All trees >1.3 m in height in 0.01-ha circular plots centred on a tree killed fewer than two or more than five years previously or located where there were no symptomatic trees were removed from the soil by an excavator. The location and host response at each A. ostoyae lesion on root systems were recorded. Significant differences in belowground incidence were seen among climatic regions and plot types, with distance from the centre of plots, and between planted and naturally regenerated trees. Belowground incidence was related to the percentage of putatively colonized stumps within and adjacent to plots. There were significant differences among climatic regions in the intensity of infection, host reaction to infection, and percentage of diseased trees showing aboveground symptoms. These results have implications for interpreting results of surveys for Armillaria root disease in juvenile stands and for tending of such stands.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".