Induction of systemic disease resistance and pathogen defence responses in <i>Asparagus officinalis</i> inoculated with nonpathogenic strains of <i>Fusarium oxysporum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of nonpathogenic isolates of Fusarium oxysporum (np Fo ) to induce systemic resistance and defence responses against subsequent challenge with a pathogenic strain of F. oxysporum f. sp. asparagi ( Foa ) was examined in Asparagus officinalis . In a split‐root experiment, roots inoculated with np Fo exhibited a hypersensitive response and those subsequently inoculated with Foa displayed resistance. Induction of systemic resistance in np Fo ‐treated plants led to significantly fewer necrotic lesions ( P = 0·05) and reduced Foa disease severity compared with plants not treated with np Fo . In hyphal‐sandwich root inoculation experiments, activities of peroxidase and phenylalanine ammonia‐lyase and lignin content were higher in np Fo ‐treated plants and increased more rapidly than in np Fo ‐untreated plants after Foa inoculation. Antifungal activity (inhibition of fungal spore germination and germ‐tube growth) from exudates of roots inoculated with Foa were observed for np Fo ‐treated plants but not for np Fo ‐untreated plants. Thus, isolates of np Fo may function as inducers of systemic acquired resistance (SAR) and defence responses against Foa invasion in A. officinalis .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".