Potential of plant extracts in combination with bacterial antagonist treatment as biocontrol agent of red rot of sugarcane
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant extracts and antifungal microorganisms were tested singly and in combination for biocontrol of sugarcane red rot disease (Colletotrichum falcatum) using two sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) cultivars, CoC671 and CoC92061, in pot and field experiments. Leaf extracts of Abrus precatorius and Bassia latifolia and the rhizome extract of Curcuma longa reduced Colletotrichum falcatum mycelial growth by 80%, 58%, and 57%, respectively. Although sugarcane- planting materials (setts) treated individually with either Pseudomonas fluorescens Md1 or A. precatorius in pot experiments had the lowest incidences of red rot, 20.1% and 24.2%, respectively, none of the plant extracts were effective in the field. In contrast, when the two varieties were tested separately in two field locations, the setts treated with A. precatorius in combination with a spray or soil application of P. fluorescens Md1 had the lowest incidence of red rot in both locations, e.g., 3.1% and 3.4% incidence for CoC92061 in one location, and had a similar response to the chemical control. The results suggest the applicability of plant-based extracts for the suppression of sugarcane red rot disease in the field as an environment-friendly tool in combination with antagonists.
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.
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 it