Evaluation of the Effect of Seed Treatments, Bactericides, and Cultivars on Bacterial Leaf Spot of Lettuce Caused by <i>Xanthomonas campestris</i> pv. <i>vitians</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a part of a broader program for management of bacterial leaf spot, the effects of lettuce-seed treatments, greenhouse application of bactericides, and cultivars were evaluated. Seed artificially inoculated with Xanthomonas campestris pv. vitians was treated with bactericides or heat treated and evaluated for the incidence of contaminated seed and seed germination. Seed soaked in 1% sodium hypochlorite for 5 and 20 min had an incidence of contaminated seed of less than 10%. Dry-heat (1 h), hot-water (50°C, 2 h), and organic-acid treatments significantly reduced seed germination. Considering both the effects on incidence of contaminated seed and seed germination, the best treatments were soaking the seeds in 1% sodium hypochlorite for 5 or 20 min. Copper sulfate, alone or mixed with Zineb or Dithane, failed to control the disease and caused phytotoxicity. All of the other bactericides significantly reduced the severity of bacterial leaf spot. However, the differences among bactericide efficacy were too small to allow comparison between the different forms of copper used, as well as the effect of adding manganese and zinc (Dithane) or zinc alone (Zineb) to the copper product. Nevertheless, copper hydroxide alone, mixed with Zineb or mixed with Dithane, and basic copper sulfate reduced disease severity by 86.89, 78.67, 80.42, and 81.82%, respectively, without causing phytotoxicity. For the two years of cultivar evaluation, no significant difference in mean disease severity was observed among the cultivars. Based on disease incidence, the most susceptible cultivar was Bellagreen. Cvs. Ideal cos, Grand Teton, Great Lakes, Paris Island, Ithaca, and Optima showed intermediate susceptibility, and the least-susceptible cultivars were Waldmann's and Grand Rapids, both green-leaf type. There was no significant difference between the three romaine (cos) cultivars and between the two crisphead cultivars, but a significant difference was observed between the two butterhead types, Bellagreen and Optima, which had 80.04 and 48.01%, respectively, of their leaves diseased at the time of harvest.
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) | 0.001 | 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".