Suppression of clubroot by <i> <scp>C</scp> lonostachys rosea </i> via antibiosis and induced host resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of the biofungicide Prestop ® ( C lonostachys rosea ) was investigated for control of clubroot ( P lasmodiophora brassicae ) on canola. The key product components were partitioned and assessed for their effect on pathogen resting spores, root hair infection ( RHI ) and disease development using light microscopy, quantitative PCR and different application treatments during infection. The whole product of Prestop was consistently more effective than the C. rosea conidial suspension or product filtrate alone in reducing RHI and clubroot development. This biofungicide showed little effect on germination or viability of resting spores. Two‐application treatments at seeding and 7–14 days after seeding achieved greater clubroot control than a single application of the biofungicide at either seeding or post‐seeding stage. This may indicate the need to maintain a high biofungicide dose in the soil during primary and secondary infection. This biocontrol fungus colonized the rhizosphere and interior of canola roots extensively, and possibly induced plant resistance based on up‐regulation of the genes that are involved in jasmonic acid ( BnOPR2 ), ethylene ( BnACO ) and phenylpropanoid ( BnOPCL , BnCCR ) biosynthetic pathways. It is concluded that the biofungicide Prestop suppressed clubroot on canola at least via root colonization and induced systemic resistance ( ISR ), and the latter may be through the modulation of phenylpropanoid and jasmonic acid/ethylene metabolic pathways elicited by the fungus.
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".