MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514691191

Nematodes intercepted in introduced germplasm of horticultural crops.

2005· article· en· W1514691191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arjun Lal, Rajan Rajan

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian journal of plant protection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCuttingRootstockHorticultureGermplasmQuarantineSowingAgronomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imported germplasm of horticultural crops comprising seeds, stem cuttings, rhizomes, suckers, bulbs, rootstocks and tissue culture plantlets, was examined for associated plant parasitic nematodes by employing suitable detection techniques. Several plant parasitic nematodes were intercepted which include Scutellonema bradys on yams from USA; Ditylenchus dipsaci on flower bulbs (gladiolus, narcissus, tulips) and garlic bulbs from Denmark, the Netherlands and France; Aphelenchoides fragariae and Pratylenchus brachyurus in seedlings of chrysanthemum and strawberry from Australia, the Netherlands and USA; Heterodera humuli from Humulus lupulus (rooted cuttings) from Australia and Germany; Meloidogyne incognita, Pratylenchus coffeae, P. crenatus, P. penetrans. P. vulnus and Tylenchorhynchus spp. on rootstocks of apple, pear, peach, plum, apricot and Rubus species from Australia, Canada, France, Germany and USA. Interception of A. fragariae, D. dipsaci, H. humuli and P. penetrans are of high quarantine importance, as they are yet not recorded from India. Analysis of results revealed that import of horticultural crop germplasm in the form of stem cuttings, scions and tissue culture plantlets was the safest way of introduction. The infested material was salvaged using hot water treatment or nematicidal treatment. Post-entry quarantine inspection of released planting material revealed non-occurrence of exotic nematode species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian journal of plant protectionSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207