MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080894715 · doi:10.1094/pdis-11-11-1006-pdn

First Report of Club Root Caused by <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> on Canola in Australia

2012· article· en· W2080894715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ravjit Khangura, D. W. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaBiologySporeBrassicaWiltingClubrootBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009, a disease survey was conducted in 97 commercial canola (Brassica napus L.) fields in Western Australia by the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA). In about 20% of the fields from the northern agricultural region of Western Australia, small patches were observed where canola plants showed symptoms of stunting and wilting. These plants were collected and roots of affected plants were washed thoroughly and examined for the presence of root disease. Small galls and clublike structures were observed on the secondary roots and sometimes on the main root of the affected plants. Examination of thin free hand sections from the root galls revealed that several cortical cells were enlarged and full of resting spores. The diameter of resting spores ranged between 2.5 and 3.0 μm. Plasmodia and zoosporangia were also observed in the root hairs. The identity of Plasmodiophora brassicae Woronin was confirmed by PCR using a modified method of Cao et al. 2007 (1). DNA from spores and slices of the galls of 14 different samples were extracted using DNeasy plant mini kit (QIAGEN Australia) as per manufacturer's instructions. Samples were disrupted by placing them into MPBIO tube A and placed in the Fast Prep machine at speed of 6 ms–1 for 40 s. This was repeated twice. The species-specific primers TC1F (5′-GTGGTCGAACTTCATTAAATTTGGGCTCTT-3′)/TC1R (5′-TTCACCTACGGAACGTATATGTGCATGTGA-3′) and TC2F (5′-AAACAACGAGTCAGCTTGAATGCTAGTGTG-3′)/TC2R (5′-CTTTAGTTGTGTTTCGGCTAGGATGGTTCG-3′) were used (1). The primers TC1F and TC1R failed to produce a PCR product of 548-bp size but using the primers TC2F and TC2R the PCR reaction resulted in a 519- bp fragment. Seven out of 14 samples gave positive results for P. brassicae with primers TC2F and TC2R. This indicates that the P. brassicae pathotype from Western Australia may be different than the one found in Alberta, Canada. However, pathotypes of P. brassicae from brassica vegetables from Australia have been found similar to the populations of P. brassicae present in the United States (2). Pathogenicity of P. brassicae was tested by dipping roots of five 10-day-old canola plants var. Cobbler in a spore suspension (1 × 106 resting spores/ml). Roots of five control plants were dipped in sterile water. Five weeks after inoculation, small galls were observed on the roots of three inoculated plants and the control plants remained symptomless. Resting spores were recovered from the galls developed on the roots of affected plants. Presence of P. brassicae in the affected roots was further confirmed by PCR using the method described above. To our knowledge, this is the first report of club root of canola in Australia. Club root is reported from vegetable brassicas and white mustard (Sinapis alba L.) in Australia. Club root has become a serious disease of canola in Canada since its detection in Alberta in 2006 (3). The resting spores of the fungus can survive for several years in soil, and therefore, this disease could pose a significant threat to canola production in Western Australia. References: (1) Cao et al. Plant Dis. 91:80, 2007. (2) Donald et al. Ann. App. Biol. 148:239, 2006. (3) S. Streklov et al. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 28:467, 2006.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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