Resistance to Dodine in Populations of <i>Venturia inaequalis</i> in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dodine was introduced in the USA and Canada in the early 1960s for the control of apple scab. Following control failure, growers stopped using dodine in the mid-1970s. Despite the curtailment of dodine use more than 30 years ago, persistent resistance to the fungicide was suspected in V. inaequalis populations. The dodine sensitivity was determined for two populations that were not exposed to dodine for at least 30 years – a wild type population (25 monoconidial isolates) and a population constructed with isolates collected in orchards managed for apple scab (156 isolates). The sensitivity to dodine was determined by monitoring growth of these isolates on agar Petri dishes amended with 0, 0.01, 0.1, 1.0, or 10.0 μg/ml of dodine. Sensitivity to fungicide was evaluated based on ED50 values. Both populations showed a lognormal distribution of ED50 values. The ED50 means were 0.525 μg/ml and 1.735 μg/ml for the wild type and managed orchards populations, respectively. In managed orchard, 31.4% of the isolates were resistant to dodine (ED50 > 1.0 μg/ml). Cross-resistance with myclobutanil and with kresoxim-methyl was tested and found not to be significant. The results of this study suggest that resistance to dodine is still present in the populations of V. inaequalis from Quebec and that reintroduction of dodine should only be done along with an appropriate resistance management strategy. Accepted for publication 27 April 2010. Published 14 June 2010.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".