MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Direct evidence of surface infestation of seeds and tubers by <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> and quantification of spore loads

2011· article· en· W1524516034 on OpenAlexafffundabout
D. C. Rennie, Victor P. Manolii, T. Cao, Sheau‐Fang Hwang, R. J. Howard, Stephen E. Strelkov

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Pathology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Canola Producers CommissionCanadian Seed Growers' AssociationAlberta Crop Industry Development Fund
KeywordsClubrootBiologySporeCanolaInfestationAgronomyGreenhouseHorticultureBotanyBrassica

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using quantitative PCR, DNA of Plasmodiophora brassicae , the causal agent of clubroot, was detected and quantified on canola, pea and wheat seeds, as well as on potato tubers, all harvested from clubroot‐infested fields in Alberta, Canada. Quantifiable levels of infestation were found on seven of the 46 samples analysed, and ranged from <1·0 × 10 3 to 3·4 × 10 4 resting spores per 10 g seeds; the vast majority (80–100%) of resting spores on these samples were viable, as determined by Evan’s blue vital staining. However, the levels of infestation found were generally lower than that required to cause consistent clubroot symptoms in greenhouse plant bioassays. While the occurrence of P. brassicae resting spores on seeds and tubers harvested from clubroot‐infested fields suggests that seedborne dissemination of this pathogen is possible, practices such as commercial seed cleaning may be sufficient to effectively mitigate this risk.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations81
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant PathologySame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207