MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982579198 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2003.87.3.282

Survival of <i>Gibberella zeae</i> in <i>Fusarium</i>-Damaged Wheat Kernels

2003· article· en· W1982579198 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon A. Inch, Jeannie Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGibberella zeaeFusariumBiologyGibberellaFungusBotanyFungi imperfectiAgronomyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The survival of Gibberella zeae in Fusarium-damaged kernels was investigated under field conditions at Glenlea, Morden, Portage la Prairie, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Fusarium-damaged kernels were either left on the soil surface or buried at 5 or 10 cm and monitored for 24 months. G. zeae was isolated after 24 months from Fusarium-damaged kernels under all conditions, with isolation frequency ranging from 85 to 99% of kernels. Perithecia developed on Fusarium-damaged kernels from all locations and treatments, but ascospores developed only in perithecia on kernels located at the soil surface. A similar experiment was conducted under controlled conditions to test survival of the fungus in kernels left at the surface or buried at 5 cm in heat-treated and nontreated soil at -10, 2, and 20°C. The fungus survived in 76 to 100% of kernels. When kernels were incubated at 20°C, G. zeae was recovered from 83 and 76% of kernels in heat-treated and nontreated soil, respectively. Perithecia developed on kernels incubated at 20 and 2°C, but ascospores developed only in perithecia on Fusarium-damaged kernels at 20°C on the soil surface. As survival of G. zeae in Fusarium-damaged kernels did not decrease after 24 months, rotations of at least 2 years are necessary to avoid infection of new crops by G. zeae originating from Fusarium-damaged kernels.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations54
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207