MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181462582 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.44.1.157

Efficacy of Chlorine in Controlling Five Common Plant Pathogens

2009· article· en· W2181462582 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Feliciano Cayanan, Ping Zhang, Weizhong Liu, Mike Dixon, Youbin Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPythium aphanidermatumRhizoctonia solaniPhytophthora cactorumPhytophthora infestansChlorineFusarium oxysporumPythiumHorticultureBiologyDisinfectantGreenhouseCarnationPlastic mulchPhytophthoraAgronomyBotanyBlightBiological pest controlChemistryMulch

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recycled irrigation water is one of the major sources of inoculum and may spread plant pathogens throughout the nursery or greenhouse operation. Chlorination is the most economical method of disinfecting water and has been adopted by some North American commercial growers. However, chlorine has not been assessed as a disinfectant for the common plant pathogens Phytophthora infestans , Phytophthora cactorum , Pythium aphanidermatum , Fusarium oxysporum , and Rhizoctonia solani . These pathogens were exposed to five different initially free chlorine solution concentrations ranging from 0.3 to 14 mg·L −1 in combination with five contact times of 0.5, 1.5, 3, 6, and 10 min to determine the free chlorine threshold and critical contact time required to kill each pathogen. Results indicated that the free chlorine threshold and critical contact time for control of P. infestans , P. cactorum , P. aphanidermatum , F. oxysporum , and R. solani were 1, 0.3, 2, 14, and 12 mg·L −1 for 3, 6, 3, 6, and 10 min, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations57
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207