MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031264597 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2000.84.5.544

Effects of Host, Inoculum Concentration, Wetness Duration, Growth Stage, and Temperature on Anthracnose of Lentil

2000· article· en· W2031264597 on OpenAlexafffund
G. Chongo, C.C. Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiologyLeaf wetnessHost (biology)Stage (stratigraphy)HorticultureDuration (music)BotanyAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of concentration of conidia, duration of the wetness period, plant growth stage, and temperature on the development of anthracnose (Colletotrichum truncatum) on lentil (Lens culinaris) were assessed in growth-chamber and greenhouse studies using cv. Indianhead and line 458-57, which have partial resistance, and susceptible cv. Eston. Each genotype was assessed for incubation period (IP), latent period (LP), number of lesions (LN) per stem, and disease severity (DS). Both IP and LP decreased linearly with increasing conidial concentration, wetness duration, and temperature. Both IP and LP also became progressively shorter as the plants aged between 2 to 6 weeks and increased between 6 to 8 weeks after seeding. Both LN and DS increased linearly with increasing inoculum concentration, wetness duration, and temperature. Both LN and DS also increased with plant age between 2 to 4 weeks and decreased between 4 to 8 weeks. The growth stage and temperature required for optimal disease development ranged, respectively, from 4 to 6 weeks and 20 to 24°C when plants were inoculated at a concentration of 4 × 10 4 conidia/ml and provided with a wetness period of 24 h. Generally, cv. Indianhead and line 458-57 had significantly longer IP and LP and lower LN and DS than cv. Eston.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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