MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150077182 · doi:10.1094/pdis.2003.87.1.99b

First Report of a Leaf Spot of Barley Caused by <i>Drechslera gigantea</i> in Uruguay

2003· article· en· W2150077182 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fábio Brega Gamba, A. Tekauz

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDrechsleraHordeum vulgareConidiumLeaf spotInoculationPotato dextrose agarSporeHorticultureCropSeptoriaBlightFungusBotanySpotsAgarPoaceaeAgronomyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barley (Hordeum vulgare), an important crop in Uruguay, is vulnerable to several foliar diseases. In early November 2001, leaves displaying unusual lesions were observed in a commercial barley crop and research plots in the Paysandu District of western Uruguay. Lesions were small, elliptical, tan-colored to necrotic, approximately 4 × 1 mm, and had a narrow, dark brown margin. Older lesions occasionally were surrounded by a narrow (0.5 mm wide) chlorotic halo and some lesions had a white dot in the center. Sections of affected leaf tissue were placed in a moist chamber at 20°C with a 12 h light/dark cycle for 4 days to promote sporulation of a putative fungal pathogen. Conidia subsequently developing from infected tissue were large (250 to 325 μm long) and were identified as Drechslera gigantea (2). Koch's postulates were verified by growing the fungus on 10% V8 juice agar, and the aqueous suspension was adjusted to 3 × 104conidia per ml. Lower concentrations were tested but they were not great enough to prevent disease escape. A De Vilbiss atomizer was used to spray 2-week-old barley seedlings kept in a growth chamber at 18°C with a 17/7 h light/dark cycle. Inoculated plants were kept in the dark for 24 h at 100% relative humidity and then returned to the previous conditions. Twenty seedlings of each of two Canadian, one American, and eight barley genotypes from Uruguay were used for the study. The experiment was conducted twice including water controls each time. Small lesions appeared on all leaves of all inoculated plants on 10 cultivars 4 days after inoculation, and after 9 days they were fully developed and visually the same as those on plants in the field. Control plants did not display symptoms. D. gigantea was reisolated from lesions on all diseased leaves. A 0 to 5 disease infection scale, based on lesion size, was developed for which infection types 0, 1, and 2 were considered as immune, resistant, and moderately resistant phenotypes, respectively, type 3 as an intermediate phenotype, and 4 and 5 as moderately susceptible and susceptible phenotypes, respectively. The most susceptible infection type was observed on ‘Dayman’ barley, the same cultivar in which the disease was first noted and from which the pathogen was isolated. Cv. Herta, once grown in western Canada, also was susceptible, whereas the cvs. Bowman (United States) and McGwire (Canada) were moderately resistant. Only one cultivar (Uruguay) did not show any symptoms. Several Uruguayan experimental barley lines exhibited moderately resistant or intermediate phenotypes. D. gigantea has been reported as causing an “eyespot” disease on grasses (2) and rice (1). Further studies with different inoculation protocols and host development stages as well as sampling of a broader range of barley germ plasm is needed to assess the current and potential impact of this fungus. To our knowledge, this is the first report of D. gigantea as a pathogen of barley in Uruguay, and possibly the first report of this species as a barley pathogen globally. References: (1) S.-W. Ahn. Plant Dis. 64:878, 1980. (2) C. Drechsler. J. Agric. Res. 24:641,1923.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207