Biological Control of Blossom Blight of Alfalfa Caused by <i>Botrytis cinerea</i> Under Environmentally Controlled and Field Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungal and bacterial antagonists were tested for their inhibition of sporulation of Botrytis cinerea on detached alfalfa florets. Clonostachys rosea, Gliocladium catenulatum, and Trichoderma atroviride were evaluated for protecting young blossoms and pods of alfalfa from infection by B. cinerea in vitro. C. rosea was further tested to control pod rot and seed rot caused by B. cinerea under field conditions. The results showed that four of the tested antagonists, C. rosea, G. catenulatum, T. atroviride, and Trichothecium roseum, could inhibit sporulation by B. cinerea on detached alfalfa florets. Both C. rosea and G. catenulatum were effective in suppression of infection of alfalfa pods by B. cinerea when inoculated on fresh petals of alfalfa at the anthesis stage, and their efficacy was greater than that of Trichoderma atroviride. A significant suppression of B. cinerea by C. rosea and G. catenulatum on pods and seed of alfalfa was observed when they were inoculated on senescent petals at the pod-development stage. Results of a field trial indicated that C. rosea applied to upper parts of alfalfa plants significantly suppressed pod rot and seed rot caused by B. cinerea, and significantly increased seed production of alfalfa in each of 3 years. These studies show that C. rosea has potential as a biocontrol agent for control of alfalfa blossom blight caused by B. cinerea.
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".