MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

B<scp>IOLOGICAL</scp> C<scp>ONTROL IN</scp> G<scp>REENHOUSE</scp> S<scp>YSTEMS</scp>

2001· review· en· W2113809541 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timothy C. Paulitz, Richard R. Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Phytopathology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBotrytis cinereaBiologyPowdery mildewFungicideBiological pest controlTrichodermaFusariumSclerotiniaRhizoctoniaHorticulturePythiumAntibiosisBotanyAgronomyRhizoctonia solaniBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The controlled environment of greenhouses, the high value of the crops, and the limited number of registered fungicides offer a unique niche for the biological control of plant diseases. During the past ten years, over 80 biocontrol products have been marketed worldwide. A large percentage of these have been developed for greenhouse crops. Products to control soilborne pathogens such as Sclerotinia, Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Fusarium include Coniothyrium minitans, species of Gliocladium, Trichoderma, Streptomyces, and Bacillus, and nonpathogenic Fusarium. Products containing Trichoderma, Ampelomyces quisqualis, Bacillus, and Ulocladium are being developed to control the primary foliar diseases, Botrytis and powdery mildew. The development of Pseudomonas for the control of Pythium diseases in hydroponics and Pseudozyma flocculosa for the control of powdery mildew by two Canadian research programs is presented. In the future, biological control of diseases in greenhouses could predominate over chemical pesticides, in the same way that biological control of greenhouse insects predominates in the United Kingdom. The limitations in formulation, registration, and commercialization are discussed, along with suggested future research priorities.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1210.093

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations572
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of PhytopathologySame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207