MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Affecting Biological Control of <i>Sclerotinia sclerotiorum</i> by Fungal Antagonists

2008· article· en· W1979893003 on OpenAlexaff
Hung‐Chang Huang, R. S. Erickson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phytopathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSclerotinia sclerotiorumBiologyBiological pest controlGerminationHorticultureAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studies were conducted to determine the effects of soil moisture (9, 16 or 24% w/w) and temperature (5, 15, 20 or 25°C) on the control of sclerotia of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum by five fungal agents in sterile and natural field soil. All five biocontrol agents were effective in reducing the survival of sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum in sterile soil under dry (9% moisture) or wet (24% moisture) conditions at 20°C, but only Coniothyrium minitans was effective in natural soil. Coniothyrium minitans was the most effective in reducing sclerotial viability at the temperature range of 15–25°C. Trichoderma virens was effective against sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum to a lesser extent than C. minitans, and in non‐autoclaved soil, it performed best at 25°C. Although Epicoccum purpurascens, Talaromyces flavus and Trichothecium roseum were effective against sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum in some instances, they were less effective than C. minitans and T. virens. Sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum conditioned for myceliogenic germination were more vulnerable to attack by the biocontrol agents than dormant sclerotia. The implications are discussed with respect to enhancement of biological control of crop diseases caused by S. sclerotiorum in different geographic regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhytopathologySame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207