MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157455253 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.42.3.737

Dry Rot of Rutabaga Caused by Fusarium avenaceum

2007· article· en· W2157455253 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. D. Peters, Tharcisse Barasubiye, Joanne Driscoll

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot rotBiologyDry rotPostharvestFusariumCropMyceliumHorticultureVeterinary medicineBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rutabaga, also known as the swede turnip, is grown on ≈2000 ha in Canada. During the spring of 2006, a grower in Prince Edward Island noticed an advanced level of decay in his stored rutabagas (cv. Thompson Laurentian). About 80% of the stored crop was affected. Lesions on the surface of affected roots were circular to ovate and ranged in size from 10 to 50 mm. The lesions were light brown, with dark borders and some concentric zones evident near the perimeter of the affected tissue. Root tissue within the lesions was shrunken and often wrinkled. Sectioning the root through the lesion revealed an internal advancing dry rot, with an irregular border and cavities that contained white mycelium. Isolation from diseased tissues yielded fungal cultures, which were determined to be Fusarium avenaceum using morphological and molecular criteria. Successful completion of Koch's postulates determined that F. avenaceum was indeed the causal agent of rutabaga dry rot. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first report of F. avenaceum causing disease in rutabaga in Prince Edward Island, and likely only the second observation of its occurrence in North America. Dry rot, incited by F. avenaceum , may need to be considered as part of the spectrum of postharvest pathogens of rutabaga.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207