Antifungal activity of aluminium‐containing salts against the development of carrot cavity spot and potato dry rot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As an alternative to the use of synthetic chemical fungicides to control plant disease, aluminium‐containing salts were evaluated for their effects on the mycelial growth of various fungal or fungus‐like pathogens and their ability to control carrot cavity spot (Pythium sulcatum) and potato dry rot (Fusarium sambucinum). Results showed that various aluminium‐containing salts provided strong inhibition of all the tested pathogens (Alternaria solani, Botrytis cinerea, F. sambucinum, P. sulcatum and Rhizopus stolonifer) with minimal inhibitory concentration of 1–10 mM. Aluminium chloride and aluminium sulphate were generally the most effective, inhibiting mycelial growth of pathogens by as much as 47% and 100%, respectively, at a salt concentration of 1 mM. Applied at 5 mM, aluminium sulphate also provided 28% and 100% inhibition of dry rot and cavity spot, respectively. Aluminium chloride (5 mM) reduced dry rot by 25% whereas aluminium lactate (5 mM) decreased cavity spot lesions by 86%. These results indicate that various aluminium‐containing salts may provide an alternative to the use of synthetic fungicides to control these pathogens.
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) | 0.001 | 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".