Management of powdery mildew in flowering dogwood in the field with biorational and conventional fungicides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a 2 yr study, control of powdery mildew on flowering dogwood (Cornus florida L.) by four biorational and four conventional fungicides was assessed on seedlings and on 3 yr liners in the field. Biorational fungicides applied were three household soaps containing 0.2% triclosan (Irgasan® DP 300)—Ajax® liquid hand soap, Equate® liquid dish soap and Palmolive® liquid dish soap-and potassium bicarbonate salt. Conventional fungicides applied were propiconazole, thiophanate methyl, azoxystrobin and copper sulfate pentahydrate. All products controlled powdery mildew compared with water controls. Application of the biorational fungicides on a weekly basis was as effective as propiconazole and thiophanate methyl and more effective than azoxystrobin and copper sulfate pentahydrate. Application of some biorational products at semi-monthly intervals was slightly less effective. Of the biorational fungicides, Palmolive® was the most effective but was phytotoxic, whereas Ajax®, Equate® and potassium bicarbonate were not. When three applications of any biorational fungicide were rotated with one application of propiconazole, the incidence of powdery mildew was less than when a fungicide rotation was not included. Plant growth was enhanced with either biorational or conventional fungicides compared with water controls. Propiconazole treatments resulted in the highest growth rates, whereas biorational products were as effective in promoting growth as thiophanate methyl, azoxystrobin or copper sulfate pentahydrate. The incorporation of biorational fungicides in a powdery mildew disease management program may have economic and environmental benefits because they are less costly than conventional fungicides and presumed safer to the environment and the applicators. Key words: Cornus florida L., Erysiphe (sect. Microsphaera) pulchra, Microsphaera pulchra, Oidium spp, Phyllactinia guttata
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".