Acetic Acid Fumigation of Apple Rootstocks and Tree Fruit Scionwood to Remove External Microflora and Potential Plant Pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acetic acid (AA) fumigation of rootstocks and dormant shoots was explored as a method of eliminating plant pathogens from propagation material. Dormant shoots were tested in early winter to determine the rate of AA vapor that they could tolerate before being damaged. Apricot ( Prunus armeniaca ), apple ( Malus × domestica ), and peach ( Prunus persica ) shoots collected from a single site in Dec. 1999 tolerated 30, 12, or 6 mg·L –1 AA, respectively. Vineland 3 (V3) and Malling-Merton 106 (MM.106) rootstock liners fumigated with 1 mg·L –1 AA were adequately surface-sterilized although the effect on growth was not recorded. A similar experiment with Malling 9 (M9) rootstocks showed that 12 mg·L –1 AA would eliminate most surface microorganisims from roots although it delayed shoot growth when the trees were planted. The higher 15 mg·L –1 rate delayed tree growth and appeared to kill some trees. The 12 mg·L –1 rate prevented growth of Erwinia amylovora and Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae bacteria on shoots even when an enrichment technique was used to detect them. Finally, when 96 `Jonagold' apple shoots known to be infected by Podosphaera leucotricha were fumigated with AA in 2001, none developed powdery mildew, although 99% of the control shoots did. These promising results suggest that further research should be done toward adapting AA fumigation for use by commercial nurseries.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".