Interaction of<i>Rhizoctonia solani</i>and<i>Rhizopus stolonifer</i>Causing Root Rot of Sugar Beet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, growers in Michigan and other sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) production areas of the United States have reported increasing incidence of root rot with little or no crown or foliar symptoms in sugar beet with Rhizoctonia crown and root rot. In addition, Rhizoctonia-resistant beets have been reported with higher levels of disease than expected. In examining beets with Rhizoctonia root rot in Michigan, over 50% of sampled roots had a second potential root rot pathogen, Rhizopus stolonifer. Growing conditions generally were not conducive to disease production by this pathogen alone, so we investigated the potential for interaction between these two pathogens. In greenhouse tests, four of five sugar beet varieties had more severe root rot symptoms when inoculated with both pathogens than when inoculated with either pathogen alone. This synergism occurred under conditions that were not conducive to disease production by R. stolonifer. Host resistance to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot reduced diseases severity, but was insufficient to control the disease when both pathogens were present. This raises concerns about correct disease diagnosis and management practices and indicates that a root rot complex may be important on sugar beet in Michigan.
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".