MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969243558 · doi:10.1071/ar04311

Incidence and distribution of viruses infecting cucurbit crops in the Northern Territory and Western Australia

2005· article· en· W1969243558 on OpenAlexaff
B. A. Coutts, Richard A. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Agricultural Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyZucchini yellow mosaic virusCropSquashCucumber mosaic virusVirusVeterinary medicinePlant virusCultivarHorticultureVirologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During 2003–04, a survey was done to determine the incidence and distribution of virus diseases infecting cucurbit crops growing in the field at Kununurra, Broome, and Carnarvon in north-western Australia, Perth in south-western Australia, and Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory. Overall, 43 cucurbit-growing farms and 172 crops of susceptible cultivars were sampled. From each crop, shoot samples were collected from plants chosen at random and from symptomatic plants. Shoot samples were sometimes also collected from potential alternative virus hosts (cucurbit volunteer plants and weeds). All samples were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using antibodies to Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV), Papaya ringspot virus-cucurbit strain (PRSV), Squash mosaic virus (SqMV), Watermelon mosaic virus (WMV), and Zucchini yellow mosaic virus (ZYMV). Samples from one-third of the crops were also tested by tissue blot immunosorbent assay (TBIA) using generic luteovirus antibodies. Overall, 72% of farms and 56% of crops sampled were virus-infected. The growing areas with the highest incidences of virus infection were Darwin and Carnarvon, and those with the lowest incidences were Katherine and Perth. For WA, overall 78% of farms and 56% of crops were virus-infected, and in the NT the corresponding figures were 55% of farms and 54% of crops. Overall virus incidences in individual crops sometimes reached 100% infection. Crops of cucumber, melon, pumpkin, squash, and zucchini were all infected, with squash and zucchini being the most severely affected. The most prevalent viruses were ZYMV and PRSV, each being detected in 5 and 4 of 6 cucurbit-growing areas, respectively, with infected crop incidences of <1–100%. SqMV was detected in 2 cucurbit-growing areas, sometimes reaching high incidences (<1–60%). WMV and CMV were found in 3 and 4 of 6 cucurbit-growing areas, respectively, but generally at low incidences in infected crops (<1–8%). Infection with luteovirus was found in 3 growing areas but only occurred in 16% of crops. Beet western yellows virus was detected once but at least one other luteovirus was also present. Infection of individual crops by more than 1 virus was common, with up to 4 viruses found within the same crop. Virus-resistant pumpkin cultivars (6 crops) had little infection when adjacent virus-susceptible cucurbit crops had high virus incidences. Viruses were detected in cucurbit volunteer plants and weeds, suggesting that they may act as important reservoirs for spread to nearby cucurbit crops. In general, established cucurbit-growing farms in close proximity to others and with poor crop hygiene suffered most from virus epidemics, whereas isolated farms with large-sized crops or that had only recently started growing cucurbits had less infection. The extent of infection revealed in this survey, and the financial losses to growers resulting from virus-induced yield losses and high fruit rejection rates, are cause for concern for the Australian cucurbit industry.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Agricultural ResearchSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207