Impact of Eradication Programs on the Temporal and Spatial Dynamics of <i>Plum pox virus</i> on <i>Prunus</i> spp. in Pennsylvania and Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of this research were to quantify the impacts of the Pennsylvania and Ontario Plum pox virus (PPV) eradication programs on the spatial and temporal dynamics of PPV epidemics on Prunus spp. The incidence of PPV-positive trees detected over time decreased in both Pennsylvania (-ln 0.85 units per year) and Ontario (-ln 0.51 units per year); however, PPV incidence per year decreased only 60% as fast in Ontario as in Pennsylvania. Marked point pattern analysis revealed that PPV-positive Prunus blocks in Pennsylvania were clustered for distances of 0.7 to 4.3 km, whereas PPV-positive blocks in Ontario were clustered for distances of 1.0 to 25.0 km. Multiyear spatiotemporal analyses revealed that the locations of PPV-positive blocks detected were spatially dependent upon the locations of PPV-positive blocks detected during the previous year. In Pennsylvania, between 2002 and 2006, distances to 95% of newly detected PPV-positive blocks occurred within 10 and 20 km from the previous year's PPV-positive blocks. In Ontario, 95% of new PPV-positive blocks occurred within 500 to 900 m from PPV-positive blocks detected the previous year. Until 2011, the PPV eradication policy for Prunus blocks in Ontario was triggered by a threshold incidence or PPV-positive tests for three consecutive years. Although the Ontario program was highly successful in reducing PPV incidence from 2001 to 2008, PPV was not eradicated. This study provides important quantitative information concerning the impact of PPV eradication programs on the spatial and temporal dynamics of PPV epidemics in Pennsylvania and Ontario. The analyses employed in this study may help to improve the effectiveness of present and future PPV eradication programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".