Soil treatments and amendments for amelioration of clubroot of canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hwang, S. F., Strelkov, S. E., Gossen, B. D., Turnbull, G. D., Ahmed, H. U. and Manolii, V. P. 2011. Soil treatments and amendments for amelioration of clubroot of canola. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 999–1010. Clubroot, caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae, has become a long-term challenge to canola production in central Alberta, Canada. Trials were established in P. brassicae infested commercial fields near Leduc, Edmonton, and St. Albert, AB, to examine the effects of fungicidal soil treatments and soil amendments on crop damage caused by clubroot. Treatment of the soil with Terraclor (quintozene) reduced clubroot severity and increased plant growth (canopy coverage and plant height) and seed yield in severely infested soils. Ranman (cyazofamid) at 7.5 L ha−1increased canopy coverage and height in 2 of 4 site years, and yield in 1 of 4 site years. Among the soil amendment treatments, wood ash at 7.5 t ha−1or ground limestone (calcium carbonate) at 5.0 or 7.5 t ha−1increased plant height and yield in severely infested soils at Leduc. Limestone at 7.5 t ha−1reduced clubroot severity at both sites and at 5.0 t ha−1reduced clubroot at St. Albert. Wood ash at 7.5 t ha−1reduced clubroot severity at Leduc in both years and all rates of wood ash reduced clubroot severity at St. Albert in 2008. Canopy coverage was increased by limestone at 7.5 t ha−1in both years at Leduc and by wood ash at 7.5 t ha−1in one of the site-years at Leduc. In 2009 and 2010, in-row treatments with Terraclor (quintozene), calcium carbonate, wood ash or quintozene+calcium carbonate or wood ash reduced clubroot severity at the Edmonton site, but yield was unaffected. We conclude that quintozene and/or high levels of limestone or wood ash can reduce the impact of P. brassicae on canola. However, in-row assessment at application rates that might be economically feasible showed little potential to increase yield in infested commercial fields.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".