Efficacy of <i>Clonostachys rosea</i> strain ACM941 and fungicide seed treatments for controlling the root rot complex of field pea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of seed treatments with bioagent ACM941 (a strain of Clonostachys rosea), its formulated products GB116 and ACM941-Pro, and common fungicides for the control of pea root rot complex were examined in six field trials in western Canada from 1996 to 2000. The effects on seedling emergence, root rot severity, and yield varied among years. In trials 1 and 2 (1996–1997), none of the treatments significantly reduced root rot severity or increased yield. ACM941 + Thiram 75WP was the most effective treatment, increasing emergence by 17.4% and was significantly better than that of the untreated controls. In trials 3 and 4 (1997–1998), Apron FL alone and ACM941 + Apron FL were significantly better than the untreated control, increasing emergence by 6.2 and 7.7%, and yield by 10.8 and 11.5%, respectively. In trials 5 and 6 (1999–2000), AC M 941 and GB116 were equally the most effective treatments, increasing emergence by 11.5 and 12.2%, and yield by 8.2 and 6.3%, respectively. These effects were significantly greater than that of the untreated control, but not significantly different from those of Apron FL or Vitaflo-280. ACM941-Pro was developed and tested in 2000 only, and it increased emergence by 17.1% and reduced root rot severity by 29.6%. Key words: Bioagent, Clonostachys rosea, field pea, Pisum sativum, pea root rot complex (PRRC), seed treatment, fungicide
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".