Typhula blight development in<i>Poa annua</i>and<i>Poa pratensis</i>as influenced by persistence of the fungicides chlorothalonil and fludioxonil under snow cover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typhula blight is a major problem on golf courses where snow cover persists for long periods. The disease is primarily managed by applying a mixture of fungicides in the autumn prior to winter snow cover. The fungicides chlorothalonil and fludioxonil are often included in these mixtures even though they do not completely suppress Typhula blight when applied alone. We studied whether minimal control was due to a lack of persistence of these fungicides under snow, or whether certain isolates of Typhula ishikariensis and T. incarnata exhibited tolerance to these fungicides. The persistence of chlorothalonil and fludioxonil residues in the turf was determined during the winters of 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08. Concentrations of chlorothalonil and fludioxonil in the verdure decreased or remained nearly the same at most sampling dates, indicating these fungicides did not dissipate rapidly under snow. Despite this, only marginal control of Typhula blight was observed in the fungicide-treated plots. The in vitro sensitivity of T. ishikariensis and T. incarnata isolates to chlorothalonil and fludioxonil was tested. Growth of most isolates (70%) on agar amended with 1 µg mL−1 chlorothalonil was inhibited by more than 50% relative to growth on non-amended agar. However, almost all isolates exhibited some growth at concentrations as high as 500 µg mL−1. A high proportion of isolates (85%) were inhibited by greater than 80% at 1 µg mL−1 fludioxonil. Therefore, at least some growth of these isolates at high fungicide concentrations may explain why chlorothalonil and fludioxonil are not completely effective in suppressing Typhula blight.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".