MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984591347 · doi:10.1094/pdis-93-8-0846c

First Report of <i>Longidorus breviannulatus</i> Associated with Damage on Creeping Bentgrass Golf Greens in Québec, Canada

2009· article· en· W1984591347 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louis Simard, G. Bélair, Stephen E. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgrostisAgrostis stoloniferaBiologyPoaceaeAgronomyNematodeAerationBotanyHorticultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creeping bentgrass, Agrostis stolonifera L., is the most important turfgrass species cultivated on golf greens in Canada. The needle nematode, Longidorus breviannulatus Norton & Hoffman, has several plant hosts including Gramineae such as corn, Zea mays L. (3), and creeping bentgrass (1). This large, plant-parasitic nematode is found most frequently in sandy soils and is encouraged by irrigation (2). In 2006, irregular, yellowish/chlorotic, and dead turfgrass patches were observed for the first time on several sand-based creeping bentgrass cv. Penncross greens on a golf course in Bromont, Québec (45°19′N, 72°39′W). Furthermore, a noticeable decline of the turfgrass root system was observed. Creeping bentgrass was grown with the following management practices: mowing height 3.18 mm, fertilization 2.27 kg N/0.45 kg P2O5/3.18 kg K2O/92.9 m2/year, aeration two times per year with 9.53-mm-diameter hollow core. On 5 July 2006, soil (0.5 kg) was sampled from two damaged areas of green no. 11. Three plugs (5-cm diameter × 15 cm deep) were taken from each area with a soil probe and pooled to form two separate samples. Another set of soil samples was collected on 12 July from three golf greens (nos. 10, 11, and 16). One sample was taken from each of three damaged areas and two healthy areas of each green. Plant-parasitic nematodes were extracted from 100-ml volumes of each soil sample by the Baermann pan and funnel extraction methods. Numbers of L. breviannulatus from the soil sampled on 5 July were counted with a stereo-microscope after 4 days of extraction, while numbers of L. breviannulatus in the rest of the samples were counted after 7 days of extraction. Identification was determined by morphological examination of a small number of adult female nematodes (n = 7). Characteristics distinguishing these specimens as L. breviannulatus include: amphidial pouches (bilobed and extending to the guiding ring), length 5,115 μm (4,780 to 6,230 μm), distance of the guiding ring from the oral aperture 26 μm (24 to 30 μm), odontostyle length 83 μm (78 to 90 μm), and tail length 42 μm (37 to 50 μm). In the two soil samples collected on 5 July, 0 and 183 juveniles per kilogram of dry soil were recovered with the Baermann pan method. In samples collected on 12 July from damaged areas of three greens, averages of 16 (min 0 and max 60) and 22 (min 0 and max 80) juveniles per kilogram of dry soil were obtained with the Baermann pan and funnel methods, respectively. No L. breviannulatus was found in any sample from healthy areas. Although no damage threshold has been established for L. breviannulatus in creeping bentgrass, low numbers of needle nematodes can be damaging in other crops such as corn. In our study, the occurrence of the damage was related to populations of the needle nematode, and therefore, the nematode was the likely cause of the damage. In Canada, L. breviannulatus is reported from Ontario (4). To our knowledge, this is the first report of the occurrence of L. breviannulatus in Québec. References: (1) L. B. Forer. Plant Dis. Rep. 61:712, 1977. (2) R. B. Malek et al. Plant Dis. 64:1110, 1980. (3) D. C. Norton and J. K. Hoffmann. J. Nematol. 7:168, 1975. (4) W. Ye and R. T. Robbins. J. Nematol. 36:220, 2004.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207