Bidirectional interactions between Grosmannia abietina and hybrid white spruce: Pathogenicity, monoterpene defense responses, and fungal growth and reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bark beetle-vectored phytopathogenic fungi can play critical roles in how beetle outbreaks affect the health of forest trees. However, trees can defend themselves against fungal infection. How Grosmannia abietina , a symbiotic fungus of spruce beetle ( Dendroctonus rufipennis ), affects the health of mature hybrid white spruce ( Picea engelmannii x glauca ) and is in turn affected by the tree's defenses are unknown. We conducted field inoculations of this spruce to study the degree of pathogenicity of G. abietina , characterized the trees' resulting defensive monoterpene responses, and assessed monoterpene effects on fungal growth and reproduction in laboratory bioassays. Our results indicated that G. abietina is phytopathogenic to hybrid white spruce, which induced monoterpenes in response to infection. Dominant induced monoterpenes generally inhibited fungal growth but stimulated spore production. These findings provide insights into the bidirectional effects between spruce beetle-vectored fungi and host trees, highlighting the complex role of monoterpenes in modulating fungal activities.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".