Sensitivity of <i>Botrytis squamosa</i> to Different Classes of Fungicides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An automated quantitative (AQ) assay was compared with radial growth on solid media and with dry weight in liquid culture for assaying fungicide sensitivity in Botrytis squamosa, the causal agent of onion leaf blight. Five isolates of B. squamosa were assayed for sensitivity to mancozeb (Dithane DG) and iprodione (Rovral) at five concentrations (0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0, and 50 ppm). For mancozeb, the correlations between 50% effective concentration (EC50) values obtained with the three assays were not significant; however for iprodione, correlations between EC50 values for AQ and radial growth and for AQ and dry weight were significant (r = 0.98 and 0.99, respectively). The AQ method was less time consuming and more reliable than the two standard assays. The AQ method was used to evaluate the sensitivity of 35 field isolates of B. squamosa to mancozeb (Dithane DG), iprodione (Rovral), vinclozolin (Ronilan DF), and chlorothalonil (Bravo 500). All isolates were sensitive to mancozeb (EC50 ranged from 3.36 to 12.97) and chlorothalonil (EC50 < 1.5 μg/ml), but four isolates were insensitive to both iprodione (EC50 ≥ 3.98 μg/ml) and vinclozolin (EC50 ≥ 17.49 μg/ml). The ratio of the EC50 values of the least-sensitive and the most-sensitive isolates of B. squamosa was 1.08, 3.86, 6.98, and 37.59 for chlorothalonil, mancozeb, iprodione, and vinclozolin, respectively. Cross-resistance was observed for the two dicarboximide fungicides, iprodione and vinclozolin, with a significant correlation (r = 0.94) in the sensitivity of the 35 isolates to these two fungicides.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".