Characterization, distribution and pathogenicity of bacteria isolated from chlorotic white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) / by Emmanuel Mireku. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several genera of bacteria were isolated from the foliage, \ntwigs, bark and wood of stems of chlorotic 10 - 12 years old white \nspruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). \nMost of the isolates were nonspore-forming, aerobic or \nfacultative anaerobic rods. Ninety-four percent of all isolates were \ngram-negative and six percent gram-variable. From 16 isolates, five belonged to the genus Enterobacter (Erwinia), four were Serratia spp., three Pseudomonas spp. and two isolates resembled the genus Pasteurella. Two isolates could not be classified. \nThe bacteria were found throughout the entire trees, but \nqualitative and quantitative differences existed between sections of the \ntrees. The number of bacteria varied from 2.3 X 10[superscript3] to 6.0 X 10[superscript5] / g.d.w., higher concentrations being present in the fine roots and brown spots of bark. \nInoculations with the selected bacterial isolates, alone or in combination, induced pathological responses on young germinants and \nrooted cuttings of white and black spruce. Stunting, discoloration, localized \nswellings, tip necroses of hypocotyl, reduced root growth and needle \ndeformation were induced by dip inoculation of seed and hypocotyl. \nWhen the inocula were applied to green cuttings the rooting of cuttings \nand the number and length of developing roots were significantly reduced. Re-isolations yielded the original bacterial types used for the inoculations. \nThe observed pathogenic effects were consistently associated \nwith the Enterobacter isolates and one unknown isolate (U[subscript1]). The pathogenicity tests showed that many of the bacteria inhabiting white spruce have the capacity to affect the growth and development of young roots of black and white spruce and thus plausibly to contribute to the chlorosis syndrome of white spruce.
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".