Characterization of<i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i>populations from Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clubroot, caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae, was identified in a number of canola (Brassica napus) fields in central Alberta in 2003. To characterize the virulence of the pathogen in the province, field populations from a number of locations in the Edmonton region were tested on the two most widely used sets of differential hosts, those of P.H. Williams and the European Clubroot Differential (ECD) series. Populations from British Columbia and Ontario were included for comparison. While the reaction of some hosts could be clearly defined as either resistant or susceptible, others showed intermediate disease index scores. If disease indices of 0%–49% and 50%–100% were regarded as resistant and susceptible, respectively, then populations from Alberta were classified as ECD 16/15/12 and 16/15/0 on the ECD set, or pathotypes 3 and 5, respectively, on the hosts of Williams. The population from British Columbia was classified as ECD 16/2/12 or pathotype 6, and the Ontario population was classified as ECD 16/0/14 or pathotype 6. The Alberta populations were more virulent on the B. napus hosts than those from other provinces, perhaps a reflection of their canola origin. In addition, 48 canola cultivars included in the 2004 Prairie Canola Variety Trials were screened for resistance to a local population of the pathogen, and all appeared to be highly susceptible. If clubroot were to become more widely established in western Canada, it could have a major negative impact on yields.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".