MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2150996282 · doi:10.4141/cjps2012-306

Laboratory efficacy and fungicide compatibility of <i>Clonostachys rosea</i> against <i>Botrytis</i> blight on lowbush blueberry

2013· article· en· W2150996282 on OpenAlexaffvenue
K. W. Reeh, G. Christopher Cutler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBotrytis cinereaFungicideBiologyBotrytisBlightHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reeh, K. W. and Cutler, G. C. 2013. Laboratory efficacy and fungicide compatibility of Clonostachys rosea against Botrytis blight on lowbush blueberry. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 639–642. Lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) is an economically important crop. Clonostachys rosea is an endophytic fungus that can provide protection of plants from several pathogens, including Botrytis cinerea. It is unknown if C. rosea is able to colonize and protect V. angustifolium, and whether it is tolerant of fungicides commonly used for B. cinerea management in blueberry production. In a greenhouse experiment, pre-treatment of blueberry blossoms with C. rosea significantly reduced establishment of B. cinerea, but treatments after establishment of the pathogen were not effective. Clonostachys rosea demonstrated in vitro tolerance to the fungicide Switch®, but little or no tolerance to Pristine® and Maestro®. Our results are encouraging for additional field research examining the use of C. rosea as part of an integrated pest management program for B. cinerea control on lowbush blueberries.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases→French-language works237,207→