Colonization and confrontation of four <i>Armillaria sinapina</i> isolates to <i>Armillaria ostoyae</i> within inoculated wood blocks and stumps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roots represent a third of terrestrial biomass. After logging, fungal pathogens use stump roots as a food base to survive and this may result in negative impact on aboveground plant production. Mycelial spread determines the fungal volume in the stump, which in turn dictates inoculum potential and spread distance; hence, it is a key disease factor. The current study focuses on the spread and confrontation of two sympatric species of Armillaria with differing virulence. Living cut blocks of Douglas-fir stem were inoculated at opposite ends with a virulent Armillaria ostoyae isolate, or four A. sinapina isolates with low virulence from two biogeoclimatic zones. The inoculum blocks were buried in moist sand, and then the surface area and volume occupied by each was determined. The drier zone A. sinapina isolates colonized 80% of the block surface areas, while the moister zone isolates were about equal with A. ostoyae (42% colonized). Additionally, inoculum blocks of each species were buried against a root and root collar of two living trees, the trees were cut, and the stumps became colonized. One stump had greater A. ostoyae colonization over A. sinapina by 12%, and the other larger stump by 74% because of thicker root collar bark that hindered A. sinapina. All interspecific encounters produced a stalemate. Increased growth potential of A. sinapina in drier zones might enable root colonization before drying. Southern Canada is forecast to become drier and warmer, favouring A. ostoyae over A. sinapina in the currently more productive areas, with an increasing negative impact on aboveground productivity.
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 | 0.000 | 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".