MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078889210 · doi:10.1094/pdis-91-5-0551

Distribution of <i>Phoma sclerotioides</i> on Alfalfa and Winter Wheat Crops in the North Central United States

2007· article· en· W2078889210 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamie Larsen, C. R. Hollingsworth, J. M. Flor, Melinda R. Dornbusch, Narelle Simpson, Deborah A. Samac

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgricultural Research Service
KeywordsBiologyMedicago sativaPhomaFungusPerennial plantInternal transcribed spacerTake-allAgronomyInoculationPathogenBotanyHorticultureRibosomal RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brown root rot of alfalfa (Medicago sativa), caused by Phoma sclerotioides, has been reported in several states in the northern United States and in western Canada. A survey was conducted to determine the distribution of the fungus in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Isolates of the pathogen were recovered from roots of alfalfa, winter wheat, and perennial ryegrass plants. The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) 1, 5.8S, and ITS2 of the rDNA of the isolates from alfalfa and wheat were identical and matched the sequences of a P. sclerotioides isolate from Wyoming. The fungus was found to be widespread in both states and was detected in roots of alfalfa plants from 17 counties in Minnesota and 14 counties in Wisconsin using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assays. A real-time PCR assay was developed that increased sensitivity of detecting the pathogen from plant tissues and soil. The isolates from alfalfa caused disease on inoculated winter wheat plants. Although the fungus was previously found associated with roots of diseased cereal and turfgrass plants, this is the first demonstration of pathogenicity of P. sclerotioides on wheat.

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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207