The Biodiversity of Microfungi Isolated from the Bark of the Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because A. saccharum, is a keystone species with important commercial applications and has cultural signifiance as a Canadian symbol, it is important to understand the biology of the tree.In particular, the microbiome of A. saccharum is poorly understood and thus the goal of this thesis was to conduct a survey of the fungi inhabiting the bark.The resulting data will add to our understanding of fungal diversity in general, and about fungi living with A. saccharum specifically, and may be used for future reference to recognize and monitor pathogenic fungi and invasive species of sugar maple. Pests and diseasesAcer saccharum is prone to various diseases, with more than a hundred species of insects known to feed on this host, most of which are of minor importance (Houston 1990).Several fungi have been reported as pathogens of A. saccharum.The leaves can be infected by Rhystima americanum (Hudler et al. 1998) and Aureobasidium apocrpytum (Houston et al. 1990).Acer saccharum is also susceptible to Neonectria ditissima (Godman et al. 1990) and Eutypa parasitica (Kliejunas and Kuntz 1974), which are species producing bark cankers.The latter was recently introduced to Europe (Jurc et al. 2006).Davidsoniella virescens (synonyms include Ceratocystis virescens and Ophiostoma virescens; (De Beer et al. 2014) is also known to infect A. saccharum, where it causes staining and crown dieback in injured trees (Houston 1993).Acer saccharum is also susceptible to Sugar Maple decline (or maple blight), which is believed to be a multifactorial disease caused by a combination of lepidopteran pests (Giese and Benjamin 1964), drought, depletion of calcium and magnesium from the soil and infection by the mushroom Armillaria (Horsley et al. 2002).Jaklitsch, W.M. (2009), European species of Hypocrea Part I.The green-spored species.Study in Mycology 63: 1-91
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 | 0.001 | 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".