Effect of Foliar Trimming and Fungicides on Apothecial Number of <i>Sclerotinia sclerotiorum</i>, Leaf Blight Severity, Yield, and Canopy Microclimate in Carrot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foliar trimming of the carrot canopy has potential for reducing the severity of Sclerotinia (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) rot of carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus). The effect of trimming the carrot foliage once or twice, with and without fungicide application, was examined on carrot plants grown on organic soil for 3 years at the University of Guelph-Muck Crops Research Station in Ontario, Canada. The number of S. sclerotiorum apothecia, carrot leaf blight (CLB; Alternaria dauci and Cercospora carotae) severity, canopy microclimate, and total and marketable yield were assessed. The number of apothecia of S. sclerotiorum and relative humidity in the canopy were reduced by trimming done at either the first observation of apothecia or at 100 days after seeding (DAS). In both cases, the effects of trimming on canopy microclimate lasted between 2 and 4 weeks. Trimming the canopy twice during the season did not reduce the number of apothecia compared with trimming the canopy once at 100 DAS. Foliar trimming had little effect on CLB severity. This was attributed mainly to the lower requirement of the CLB pathogens for prolonged periods of high relative humidity and leaf wetness compared with S. sclerotiorum. Foliar trimming did not improve the efficacy of fungicide applications for CLB control. Trimming the canopy once or twice had no effect on total or marketable yield. Thus, trimming has potential to improve the management of Sclerotinia rot of carrot, and trimming both at first observation of apothecia and at 100 DAS could reduce apothecia production and relative humidity within the canopy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".