Assessment of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis as a biocontrol agent for Canada thistle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth chamber and field experiments were conducted to assess the potential of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis (Pst) as a biocontrol agent for Canada thistle. Silwet L-77, an organosilicone surfactant, was required to facilitate Pst penetration into Canada thistle leaves. Growth chamber experiments indicated that maximum Pst populations inside leaves were obtained with a Silwet L-77 concentration of 0.3% (v/v) or greater. High Pst populations (109 colony-forming units [cfu] per gram fresh weight) were found in leaves 48 h after treatment with 108 or 109 cfu ml−1 Pst plus Silwet L-77 (0.3%, v/v). In growth chamber experiments, foliar application of Pst (109 cfu ml−1) plus Silwet L-77 (0.3%, v/v) on 4- to 5-wk-old Canada thistle reduced shoot dry weight by 52% (measured 14 d after treatment) and chlorophyll content of emerging leaves by 92% (measured 10 d after treatment). In field trials conducted in 1999 and 2000, Pst (109 cfu ml−1) plus Silwet L-77 (0.3%, v/v) were applied at 700 L ha−1, and the method of application (paint gun, backpack sprayer, boom) and the number of applications (one or two separated by 14 d) were examined. Averaged over 2 yr, two applications with a backpack sprayer resulted in 67% disease incidence (apical chlorosis) of treated plants measured 4 wk after the initial treatment (WAIT). At the time of flower bud formation (8 WAIT), there was little or no disease incidence, 31% reduction in plant height, 81% reduction in number of flower buds, and 20% reduction in shoot survival during 1999 but no effect on survival in 2000.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".