Effects of fungicide, seeding date and seedling age on clubroot severity, seedling emergence and yield of canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hwang, S. F., Cao, T., Xiao, Q., Ahmed, H. U., Manolii, V. P., Turnbull, G. D., Gossen, B. D., Peng, G. and Strelkov, S. E. 2012. Effects of fungicide, seeding date and seedling age on clubroot severity, seedling emergence and yield of canola. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 1175–1186. The infestation of seeds by Plasmodiophora brassicae can result in the transmission of clubroot disease in canola. Five fungicides, including Dynasty 100 FS (azoxystrobin), Helix Xtra (thiamethoxam+difenoconazole+metataxyl+fludioxonil), NebijinTM5SC (flusulfamide), Prosper FX (clothianidin+carbathiin+trifloxystrobin+metalaxyl), and Vitavax RS (carbathiin+thiram), were evaluated under greenhouse conditions using artificially infested canola seeds for their efficacy in eliminating seed-borne inoculum. All of the fungicides significantly reduced clubroot relative to the non-treated control, but NebijinTM5SC and Dynasty 100 FS were the most effective. However, in field trials with Cruiser 5 FS (thiamethoxam), Helix Xtra, Dynasty, Prosper and Sedaxane (pyrazole anilide) applied alone or as a mixture, none of the treatments reduced clubroot severity or improved seedling emergence or yield compared with the insecticidal control (Cruiser 5 FS) in the susceptible cultivar. Clubroot severity was lower in early-seeded canola compared with the late-seeded crops in 2 site-years. The younger seedlings had greater disease severity and reduced plant height and yield than did older seedlings in both resistant and susceptible canola cultivars. We conclude that a combination of approaches including seed treatments and manipulation of seeding dates in conjunction with deployment of resistant cultivars is necessary for the sustainable management of clubroot in canola.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".