MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062532934 · doi:10.1094/pdis-93-8-0843a

First Report of a New Postharvest Disease of Pear Fruit Caused by <i>Sphaeropsis pyriputrescens</i> in Canada

2009· article· en· W2062532934 on OpenAlexaffabout
P. L. Sholberg, Sarah C. Stokes, D. T. O’Gorman

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPycnidiumBiologyConidiumPotato dextrose agarHorticultureBotrytis cinereaBotanyMyceliumPostharvestInoculationSporeAgar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of stored d'Anjou pears was conducted in British Columbia (BC), Canada in January 2006 to determine if Sphaeropsis rot was present in BC as had been reported previously for apples and pears in Washington (1,2). Sphaeropsis pyriputrescens Xiao & J.D. Rogers produces decay similar to Botrytis cinerea that originates from the stem or calyx end. Of 3,614 pears sampled, 55 (1.5%) had symptoms similar to those described for Sphaeropsis rot. Isolations were made from each infected pear onto acidified potato dextrose agar (APDA) dishes and incubated at 20°C for 5 to 7 days. Twenty-seven cultures resembling S. pyriputrescens were induced to produce pycnidia by exposing them to 12-h cycles of alternating light and dark periods at 20°C (1). Conidia extracted from pycnidia were then streaked onto PDA dishes and incubated at 20°C for 12 to 24 h from which single-spore cultures were made. These isolates developed a dense, white-to-cream mycelium that turned yellow over time; black pycnidia were formed on the culture dishes after 4 weeks. Conidia were brown, clavate to subglobose to irregular, and similar in size (16 × 10 μm) to previous descriptions (1). Identification of S. pyriputrescens was confirmed by using DNA sequence data from the β-tubulin and ribosomal genes. Sequences from S. pyriputrescens from Washington (1) were compared with those from BC, Canada. Isolates from Canada shared 99 to 100% sequence homology with those from Washington. Two of the BC isolates (DAOM 238917 and 238918) were deposited in the Canadian Culture Collection, Ottawa, ON and their corresponding sequences were placed in the GenBank database (NCBI, Bethesda, MD) with accession nos. EU156037 and EU156040 (ribosomal gene) and EU156048 and EU 156050 (β-tubulin gene), respectively. Five isolates from different locations in BC and two isolates from Washington were tested for pathogenicity on d'Anjou pears and four apple cultivars (Ambrosia, Fuji, Gala, and Granny Smith). Plugs (3 mm in diameter) removed from 2-week-old cultures were placed into two corresponding wounds on each of five fruit per cultivar. The fruit were then placed at 1 or 20°C for 22 or 7 days, respectively, when the diameters of the decay areas were recorded. All isolates were pathogenic on pears (P = <0.05). Decay lesion diameter was greater at 1°C, ranging from 46.8 to 57.9 mm, than at 20°C, ranging from 32.6 to 44.2 mm. All BC isolates were also pathogenic on the fruit of each apple cultivar (P = <0.05), although at 20°C, decay areas were smaller than on pears, and at 1°C, very little rot developed. Koch's postulates were completed by reisolating S. pyriputrescens from the inoculated pears and apples and identifying the isolates as above. Although S. pyriputrescens was only observed on pears in BC, research in Washington indicates that it is a more serious problem on apples (2). To our knowledge, this is the first documented report of the occurrence of S. pyriputrescens in Canada. References: (1) C. L. Xiao and J. D. Rogers. Plant Dis. 88:114, 2004. (2) C. L. Xiao et al. Plant Dis. 88:223, 2004.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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