Organically grown cannabis (<i>Cannabis sativa</i> L.) plants contain a diverse range of culturable epiphytic and endophytic fungi in inflorescences and stem tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the diversity of fungal species present on inflorescences as epiphytes and in stem tissues as endophytes in flowering plants of cannabis grown organically in British Columbia during 2019–2021. Fresh and dried inflorescence samples were obtained at various times during production while stems were obtained at harvest. Fungal species in the air were assessed by exposing Petri dishes containing potato dextrose agar + streptomycin sulfate for 1 h in the growing environment while soil samples were dilution-plated to assess soil fungal diversity. Colonies were identified from PCR-derived sequences of the ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 region of ribosomal deoxyribonucleic acid. Twenty-nine species in 26 genera were recovered from inflorescences and 17 species in 11 genera originated from stem tissues. Approximately 96% of species found on inflorescences were present in air and 45% were present in organic soil. The fungi comprised plant pathogens, saprophytes, and opportunistic human pathogens. A large proportion of the species found in air and soil in organic facilities are present on cannabis inflorescences, where they may increase total colony forming units and negatively affect product quality. Some species could contribute to allergies or secondary infections in humans. The potential benefits of endophytes within organically grown cannabis plants remain unexplored.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".