MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022150647 · doi:10.1094/pdis-05-14-0490-re

Relationship of Airborne <i>Botrytis cinerea</i> Conidium Concentration to Tomato Flower and Stem Infections: A Threshold for De-leafing Operations

2014· article· en· W2022150647 on OpenAlexafffund
Odile Carisse, Hervé Van der Heyden

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsPhytodataAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBotrytis cinereaConidiumBiologySporeHorticultureGreenhouseBotrytisBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gray mold, caused by Botrytis cinerea, is an important threat for tomato greenhouse producers. The influence of airborne conidia concentration (ACC) on both flower and stem-wound infections was studied in a greenhouse maintained at a temperature of 15, 20, or 25°C using diseased tomato leaves as the unique source of dry inoculum. Spore samplers were used to monitor ACC, and a previously developed real-time qPCR assay was used to quantify airborne B. cinerea conidia. The proportion of infected flowers remained low at ACC &lt; 10 conidia/m 3 ; above this concentration, flower infection increased with increasing ACC. The influence of ACC on proportion of infected flowers was well described by a sigmoid model (R 2 = 0.90 to 0.92). The mean proportion of infected stem wounds over the three trials was 0.021; no infected wounds were observed at ACC &lt; 100 conidia/m 3 . Based on logistic regression, the probability that a stem becomes infected increased rapidly with mean probabilities of 0.24 and 0.87 at ACCs of 315 and 3,161 conidia/m 3 , respectively. The results suggest that the amount of airborne B. cinerea inoculum in the greenhouse is often above the action threshold for flower infection and that monitoring airborne B. cinerea inoculum could help in timing de-leafing operations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207