MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361860644 · doi:10.47371/mycosci.myc48365

Comparison of conditions for mycelial growth of <i>Lepista sordida</i> causing fairy rings on <i>Zoysia matrella</i> turf to those on <i>Agrostis palustris</i> turf

2007· article· en· W4361860644 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yoshie Terashima, Azusa Fujiie

Bibliographic record

VenueMycoscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsAgrostisMyceliumBiologyAgronomyBotanyHorticulturePoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Symptoms of fairy rings caused by Lepista sordida have been reported on Zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp.) turf maintained at fairway height (2 cm), but not on bentgrass (Agrostis spp.) maintained at putting green height (0.5 cm). The mycelia of this fungus inhabit primarily the upper 0–2 cm layer of the soil extending into the thatch. To compare conditions for the mycelial growth in Z. matrella turf to those in A. palustris turf, we examined the effects of nutrients, temperature, water potential, and pH in the field as well as in the laboratory. Greater growth of the mycelia was observed in medium that included hot water extracts from soil of the 0–1 cm zone in Z. matrella turf compared to that from A. palustris. The upper soil layer in Z. matrella turf contained more organic matter from clippings than that in A. palustris. The temperature and water potential of the 0–2 cm soil zone in Z. matrella turf were also more favorable for the mycelial growth. The soil pH values of this zone in Z. matrella turf were less favorable compared to A. palustris but within the range for accelerating mycelial growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMycoscienceSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207