Effects of nutrient solution pH on the survival and transmission of <i>Clavibacter michiganensis</i> ssp. <i>michiganensis</i> in hydroponically grown tomatoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of pH on the survival of Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. michiganensis and its transmission via roots of tomato in hydroponic culture was studied in laboratory and greenhouse experiments. In a laboratory experiment, C . m. ssp. michiganensis could not survive for 24 h in nutrient solutions with a pH of 4·0 or 4·5, while 1, 14, 51 and 62% of inoculum survived at pH 5·0, 5·5, 6·0 and 6·5, respectively. When tomato plants were inoculated with C . m. ssp. michiganensis through wounds on the stems, the bacteria moved downward from the inoculation site to the roots and infectious bacteria were released from the roots into the nutrient solution. Of two pH regimes tested in greenhouse nutrient‐film technique (NFT) culture, the C . m. ssp. michiganensis population was significantly lower in pH 5·0 than in pH 6·5 in most sampling data. In treatments in which C . m. ssp. michiganensis was introduced by transplanting two root‐inoculated plants, significantly more plants developed canker at pH 6·5 (34 out of 48 plants) than at pH 5·0 (11 out of 48 plants). When the bacterium was introduced by transplanting two stem‐inoculated plants at pH 6·5, seven out of 24 plants developed canker. The potential of pH manipulation in controlling tomato bacterial canker in hydroponic culture is discussed.
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".