Epidemiology of Plum pox ‘D’ strain in Canada and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The successful 10-year eradication programme for Plum pox virus (PPV) in Pennsylvania, USA was based on vigilant surveys followed by removal of all Prunus spp. within 500 m of confirmed PPV-positive trees, resulting in declaration of eradication in October 2009. In comparison, in Ontario, Canada, when PPV was first discovered in 2000, the low incidence but widely dispersed epidemic extended throughout the stone fruit industry. The Canadian programme was initially predicated on vigilant surveys plus PPV-infected tree and block removal to reduce PPV incidence, followed by increasingly stringent eradication protocols over time. However, eradication was not achieved prior to programme termination in 2011. Retrospective analyses of the Canadian epidemic indicated that the estimated PPV distribution from known sources followed a pulse-peak-decay function. The function indicated that viruliferous aphids transmitted infections most commonly at 43 m (peak) distance from prior infections, but PPV distribution also has a long (decaying) tail. A Weibull model, fitted to the proportion of new PPV-infected trees detected, demonstrated that 95% of new infections occurred within 628 m, 465 m and 317 m distances, for 1, 2 and 3-yr moving averages, respectively. Results suggest that eradication might be achievable by employing a 317–628 m cull radius distance. The discontinuation of the PPV eradication programme in Ontario will result in an increase of PPV in the region, if no spread prevention measures are implemented, and threaten the nearby New York State stone fruit industry. A risk-based survey methodology for commercial and residential stone fruits has been developed to sample Prunus orchards throughout New York that emphasizes proximity to prior PPV discoveries, and proximity to the Canadian border.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".