MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979521566 · doi:10.1094/pdis-12-09-0804

Influence of Temperature and Wetness Periods on the Development of Stemphylium Blight on Lentil

2010· article· en· W1979521566 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Edmore Mwakutuya, Sabine Banniza

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Pulse GrowersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsGerminationConidiumBiologyBlightLeaf wetnessIncubationHorticultureAppressoriumIncubation periodAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stemphylium blight of lentil (Lens culinaris subsp. culinaris) caused by Stemphylium botryosum has become more prevalent in the Canadian prairies. Germination of conidia, appressorium formation, and infection of lentil plants were evaluated under controlled conditions at temperatures from 5 to 30°C and increasing incubation periods under wet conditions to elucidate the epidemiology of this disease. On glass slides, conidial germination increased steadily with temperature up to 25 and 30°C, and reached more than 80% after 20 h at these temperatures, compared with around 30% at 5°C. The response of germination on glass slides to temperature was nonlinear, as evident in significant linear, quadratic single factor, and linear, quadratic, and cubic cross factor temperature effects in the model. On lentil leaves, 18% of conidia had germinated after 2 h of incubation at 25°C, and a few germ tubes penetrated into the tissue through stomata. Germination reached 89% after 12 h, and 12% of germ tubes had penetrated into the leaves. Stemphylium blight severity reached more than 80% at 25 and 30°C with leaf wetness periods of 48 h. A simple logistic model with linear temperature, leaf wetness period, and cross factor effects described disease development on lentil plants.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207