Influence of crop rotation and flutolanil on the diversity of fungi on peanut shells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soilborne pathogens of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) often survive or over winter on peanut shells left on or in the soil. The effects of different crop rotations on the peanut shell mycobiota were compared in three field trials in 1992 and repeated in 1993. In two of the trials, plots grown continuously to peanut were either treated with the fungicide flutolanil or left untreated. Rotation practices varied with location and the crops in rotation with peanut were cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), rye (Secale cereale), bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and corn (Zea mays). In total, 31 different gene of fungi were isolated from shells. Over two-thirds of the isolates were Deuteromycotina, followed in frequency by Basidiomycetes, Ascomycetes, and Phycomycetes. The rotation practices affected the incidence of several pathogenic fungi (e.g., Fusarium spp., and Lasiodiplodia theobromae) in the peanut shells, but the results were not consistent across trials or years. Bahiagrass or corn grown in rotation with peanut reduced the frequency of Rhizoctonia solani AG-4 in shells. Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2 and Macrophomina phaseolina were isolated at a greater level in the bahiagrass-peanut rotation. Where peanut was rotated with cotton with or without a winter cover crop of rye, plots containing rye had lower isolation rates for total fungi in 1992 than those without rye, but there was no différence in 1993. Also, several species of Fusarium were isolated more frequently from shells from plots rotated with rye. Flutolanil significantly lowered isolation rates of several fungi, including R. solani AG-4, in one trial in 1992. Total fungi isolated (all fungal isolates combined) in the flutolanil-treated plots were greater in 1993, but not in 1992 at one site. Isolation rates for the different gene and species of fungi differed on the two media utilized (malt-extract agar and malt-salt agar). In particular, Alternaria alternata and species of Fusarium were isolated more frequently on malt-salt agar, whereas L theobromae, R. solani AG-4 and Trichoderma spp. were more common on malt-extract agar.
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) | 0.000 | 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".