Variable inhibitory activities of essential oils of three Monarda species on the growth of Botrytis cinerea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adebayo, O., Bélanger, A. and Khanizadeh, S. 2013. Variable inhibitory activities of essential oils of three Monarda species on the growth of Botrytis cinerea . Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 987-995. The antifungal effects of the essential oils of three Monarda species (Monarda didyma L., M. fistulosa L., and M. didyma var. 80-1A L.) were evaluated against Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr. The inhibitory effects of the volatile and contact phases of the essential oils were determined on hyphae and spores. The effects of the essential oils on the morphological structures of hyphae were studied under light microscopy. All the three tested essential oils types had inhibitory effects on both mycelia and spores as follows, in descending order of effectiveness: M. didyma > M. didyma var. 80-1A > M. fistulosa. For all essential oils, the volatile phase effects were more toxic on fungal growth than the contact phase effects. All the essential oils in the contact studies achieved complete inhibition of mycelial growth and spore germination at 819.2 µg mL-1 of ethanol and Tween 20 mixture. In the volatile studies, however, complete mycelial inhibition was achieved with M. didyma and M. didyma var. 80-1A at 0.1 µg mL-1 air and with M. fistulosa at 0.2 µg mL-1 air. Spore germination was inhibited at 0.05 µg mL-1 air with M. didyma and 0.2 µg mL-1 air with both M. didyma var. 80-1A and M. fistulosa. This study demonstrated that these essential oils are promising potential antifungal agents that could be used in the development of biofungicide alternatives to synthetic fungicides against B. cinerea.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".