Prospects and limitations for mycorrhizas in biocontrol of root pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 80 disease biocontrol products are on the market worldwide, but none of these contain mycor rhizal fungi. This is despite ample evidence that both arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ectomycorrhizal fungi can control a number of plant diseases. A procedure for successful development of disease biocontrol agents in general is used as a background to examine the potential for achieving commercial mycorrhizal biocontrol agents. This includes (i) selection and screening; (ii) characterization involving identification, studies of modes of action and ecophysiology, as well as inoculum production, formulation, application and shelf life; (iii) registration. The last stage is problematic for mycorrhizal fungi, as currently they can be sold as plant growth promoters without any form of costly registration, even though in some instances they may actually function to some extent through biocontrol activity. The significance of this approach is discussed, and some possible ways of enhancing biocontrol by mycorrhizas are considered.Key words: arbuscular mycorrhizas, ectomycorrhizas, biological disease control, soilborne pathogens, modes of action, ecology.
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 | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".