MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074280731 · doi:10.1094/pdis-04-14-0430-pdn

First Report of Clubroot on Canola Caused by <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> in North Dakota

2014· article· en· W2074280731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kishore Chittem, Seyedmojtaba Mansouripour, Luis E. del Río Mendoza

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubrootBiologyCanolaBrassicaVeterinary medicineHorticultureBrassicaceaeSoil testBotanyAgronomySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

North Dakota leads the United States in canola (Brassica napus L.) production (4). A canola field with a distinct patch of dead plants spreading over an area of approximately 0.4 ha was detected in Cavalier County, North Dakota, in early September 2013. Numerous spots within the patch had plant mortalities &gt;80%. Dead plants pulled from the soil had roots with severe galling and clubbing. Clubbed roots were brittle and disintegrated easily when pressed between fingers. Root and soil samples collected at several locations within and outside the affected patch were pooled in separate groups. All plants collected in the patch were symptomatic but those collected outside were not. In the lab, total genomic DNA from three symptomatic and two healthy root samples was extracted using standard procedures and freehand slices were prepared for observation with a compound microscope. Also, DNA from pooled soil samples was extracted using FastDNA Spin Kit for Soil (MP Biomedicals, Solon, OH). Round resting structures ranging from 2.2 to 4.2 μm in diameter were observed by microscopic examination of symptomatic root tissues. These structures resembled those typically produced by Plasmodiophora brassicae Woronin. This initial identification was later confirmed through PCR analysis using the species specific primers TC1F/R and TC2F/R (1). PCR products of 548 bp (TC1F/R) and 519 bp (TC2F/R) were produced in the three symptomatic and two infested soil samples, confirming the presence of P. brassicae. PCR amplicons were not detected in healthy root and soil samples. Pathogenicity tests were conducted in greenhouse to fulfill Koch's postulates. Briefly, five square plastic pots (10 × 10 × 13 cm) were filled with a 10-cm layer of Sunshine Mix #1 potting mix (Fison Horticulture, Vancouver, BC, Canada) and then 1 g of ground root galls (approximately 5 × 10 5 resting spores) was spread evenly on its surface and covered with 2 cm of soilless mix. A similar number of pots were filled only with soilless mix and used as controls. All pots were planted with two seeds of canola cv. Westar and incubated in greenhouse conditions at 21°C and 16 h light daily. The experiment was conducted twice. Four weeks after planting, all plants in the inoculated pots had developed galls while plants in control pots were symptomless. Presence of P. brassicae resting spores in the newly developed galls was confirmed by microscopic observations and PCR. Based on the symptoms, morphology of resting spores, PCR reactions, and pathogenicity tests, we confirm the presence of P. brassicae on canola. While P. brassicae has been reported as widespread in North America (2), to our knowledge, this is the first report of clubroot on canola in North Dakota and the United States. Clubroot became the most important disease affecting canola production in central Alberta, Canada, within 5 years of its discovery in 2003 (3); since then, the disease has been detected in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (3), Canadian provinces that share borders with North Dakota. Considering the difficulties in management of clubroot, measures should be initiated to limit the spread of the disease before it could pose a threat to United States canola production. References: (1) T. Cao et al. Plant Dis. 91:80, 2007. (2) G. Dixon J. Plant Growth Regul. 28:194, 2009. (3) S. Strelkov and S. Hwang. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 36(S1):27, 2014. (4) USDA-NASS, Ag. Statistics No. 81, 2012.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207