Effects of the fungal protein Nep1 and<i>Pseudomonas syringae</i>on growth of Canada thistle (<i>Cirsium arvense</i>), common ragweed (<i>Ambrosia artemisiifolia</i>), and common dandelion (<i>Taraxacum officinale</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of the fungal protein Nep1 and Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis (Pst) applied separately or in combination on Canada thistle, common ragweed, and common dandelion were examined in growth chamber experiments. Experiments examined five treatments: (1) untreated control, (2) Silwet L-77 (0.3%, v/v) control, (3) Nep1 (5 μg ml −1 ) plus Silwet L-77 (0.3%, v/v), (4) Pst (10 9 colony-forming units [cfu] ml −1 ) plus Silwet L-77 (0.3%, v/v), and (5) Pst (10 9 cfu ml −1 ) and Nep1 (5 μg ml −1 ) plus Silwet L-77 (0.3%, v/v). Foliar treatments were applied at 28, 26, and 21 d after planting for Canada thistle, common dandelion, and common ragweed, respectively. For all three species, foliar application of Nep1 alone or in combination with Pst caused rapid desiccation and necrosis of leaves, with the greatest effect on recent, fully expanded (RFE) leaves. Within 4 to 8 h after treatment (HAT), 60 to 80% of RFE leaves of all three species were necrotic. Measured 72 HAT, Pst populations in Canada thistle leaves treated with Nep1 plus Pst were approximately 10 5 cfu cm −2 compared with 10 7 cfu cm −2 for leaves treated with Pst alone. Measured 2 wk after treatment, foliar application of Nep1 reduced shoot dry weight of the three weeds by 30 to 41%. Treatment with Pst reduced shoot growth of common ragweed, Canada thistle, and common dandelion by 82, 31, and 41%, respectively. The large suppression of common ragweed shoot growth caused by Pst treatment was associated with a high percentage (60%) of leaf area exhibiting chlorosis. Treatment with Pst plus Nep1 did not result in significant decreases in shoot dry weight for Canada thistle and common dandelion compared with either treatment alone. For common ragweed, shoot growth reduction caused by applying Pst and Nep1 together was not greater than that caused by Pst alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".