Evaluation of fungicides for the control of carrot cavity spot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cavity spot is one of the most common and serious diseases of carrot (Daucus carota L). The disease, caused by different species of Pythium, including P. violae Chesters & Hickman, P. sulcatum Pratt & Mitchell and P. sylvaticum Campbell & Hendrix, leads to frequent high rejection rates during grading worldwide. In the area of the city of Québec, the disease is caused mainly by P. sulcatum, P. sylvaticum and P. macrosporum Vaartaja & van der Plaats-Niterink. Cavity spot can be controlled with metalaxyl, but reports are emerging that this treatment show little or no efficacy in many regions. This situation reinforces the need for alternative fungicides. The objectives of the present study were: (1) to determine the sensitivity of 14 pathogenic isolates of P. sulcatum, P. sylvaticum and P. macrosporum collected from carrots produced in the area of the city of Québec to different broad-spectrum and oomycete-specific fungicides (chlorothalonil, etridiazole, fludioxonil, fosetyl-Al, metalaxyl, zoxamide), (2) to evaluate the efficacy of the fungicides in controlling cavity spot, and (3) to evaluate the risk of resistance development of isolates with the best-performing fungicide(s). The determination of EC50 for the fungicides tested showed that most isolates were highly sensitive to both metalaxyl and zoxamide but insensitive to fludioxonil, fosetyl-Al and chlorothalonil. In greenhouse assays, only zoxamide provided significant and consistent disease control as measured by the number of cavity spot lesions caused by P. sulcatum. Investigations into the risk of resistance development to zoxamide showed that, for specific isolates, repeated exposure to the fungicide resulted in a loss of sensitivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".