The effects of methyl bromide alternatives on soil and seedling pathogen populations, weeds, and seedling morphology in Oregon and Washington forest nurseries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five fumigation treatments (a conventional methyl bromide – chloropicrin application and four reduced-rate alternative fumigant treatments) and a nonfumigated treatment were evaluated at two forest nurseries in Oregon and one forest nursery in Washington for their effects on soil pathogen populations, weeds, and seedling morphology during a 2-year study. The effect of plastic tarp composition on fumigant efficacy was also evaluated (virtually impermeable film versus high-density polyethylene). All fumigant treatments reduced soil populations of Fusarium and Pythium for up to 7 months after fumigation and resulted in seedlings with significantly less pathogen colonization than those from the nonfumigated treatment. All fumigant treatments were more effective against pathogen inoculum buried at 15 cm rather than at 30 cm. Fusarium commune Skovgaard, O’Donnell et Nirenberg, Fusarium oxysporum Schlect. emend. Snyder & Hansen, isolates from the Gibberella fujikuroi Saw. complex, Pythium irregulare Buisman, Pythium aff. spiculum B. Paul 2006, Pythium sylvaticum Campbell & Hendrix, and Pythium ‘vipa’ Hermansen & Klemsdal were the most commonly isolated pathogens. Weed biomass and weeding times were significantly reduced by fumigation, but only at the Washington nursery with high weed pressure. No significant differences were observed in efficacy between the conventional methyl bromide – chloropicrin treatment and any of the reduced rate fumigants or between the two types of plastic tarp. Conifer seedling height, diameter, shoot volume, and root volume were significantly greater in all fumigated treatments compared with the nonfumigated treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 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".