Control of common bunt (<i>Tilleta tritici</i> and <i>T. laevis</i>) of wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> cv. ‘Laura’) by fumigation with acetic acid vapour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common bunt caused by Tilletia tritici and T. laevis remains an important disease of wheat, particularly in organic production where effective fungicides are not available. Acetic acid (AA), a potential organic seed fumigant, was evaluated for control of common bunt of wheat. The highly susceptible spring wheat cultivar Laura was inoculated with bunt spores and then fumigated with 2 and 4 g kg-1 AA vapour in 23 L chambers for 1 h at 20°C. Fumigation reduced field infection levels of common bunt in trials conducted at Lethbridge, AB during 2000, 2001, and 2003. The 4 g kg-1 rate was more effective than the 2 g kg-1 rate in reducing bunt infection, although both rates were as effective as Vitavax, the standard seed-treatment fungicide treatment. Some reduction in tiller numbers was associated with the AA treatments especially at the 4 g kg-1 rate. In vitro tests on artificial growth media showed that AA significantly decreased seed-borne mold contamination caused by several species of fungi. Acetic acid fumigation could be an important organic alternative to fungicides for control of common bunt. Key words: Covered smut, organic, seed treatment, stinking smut, vinegar
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) | 0.000 | 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".