Role of spring wheat seed infested with <i>Fusarium graminearum</i> in spread and development of fusarium head blight and effects on agronomic performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of Fusarium-infested seed as a cause of fusarium head blight (FHB) was assessed for two spring wheat cultivars, 'AC Domain' (1998, 1999) and 'Glenlea' (1998-2000), at four prairie locations. Initial infection levels of 'AC Domain' and 'Glenlea' were 74 and 65%, respectively. Six treatments using mixtures of Fusarium-free and Fusarium-infested seed, in the ratios 100:0, 90:10, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, and 0:100 of free to infested, were evaluated. Seedling emergence and number of tillers per metre of row significantly decreased with rising proportions of infested seed. In 2 of the 3 years of the study, yield was significantly reduced (up to 20%) in the 100%-infested seed treatment, which was attributed to lower stand establishment and lower plot density. Test weight was significantly reduced only in 1999 and thousand-kernel weight only in 2000. Seedling blight was not observed during the study. Fusarium graminearum was isolated from infected spikes only in the Manitoba trials at Brandon and Glenlea, while Fusarium culmorum was the only species isolated from the Vauxhall material, Alberta. Fusarium head blight did not develop at Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Severity of FHB was not significantly different across treatments. Fusarium equiseti, the predominant Fusarium sp. found in this study, was isolated from 8.1% of leaf sections averaged over 1998 to 2000, while F. graminearum was isolated at low levels, 0.1%. There was no pattern in the distribution of the Fusarium spp. across treatments. Since treatment effects were not associated with development of FHB, it can be concluded that Fusarium-infested seed was not a major cause of FHB in the year it was planted. Concerns of root infection of rotation crops, and of dispersal of the pathogen via infested seed are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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".