Pasmo disease and lodging in flax as affected by pyraclostrobin fungicide, N fertility and year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vera, C. L., Irvine, R. B., Duguid, S. D., Rashid, K. Y., Clarke, F. R. and Slaski, J. J. 2014. Pasmo disease and lodging in flax as affected by pyraclostrobin fungicide, N fertility and year. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 119–126. Severe infection of the fungal disease known as pasmo, caused by Septoria linicola (Speg.) Garassini, reduces seed yield of flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) in western Canada. Pasmo may also indirectly affect seed yield by predisposing flax plants, under favorable weather and soil fertility conditions, to lodge. With the objective of studying the possible association of this disease with the occurrence of lodging and their effect on seed yield, a study was conducted at Melfort, Saskatchewan, Canada, during 4 consecutive years (2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012), with two fungicide regimes (application and no application) and five rates of nitrogen (N) fertilization (0, 33, 66, 100 and 133% of recommended). The application of pyraclostrobin fungicide reduced disease severity and increased seed yield of flax in the 3 yr (2010, 2011 and 2012) that pasmo infection was detected, and prevented or reduced the occurrence of lodging in the 2 yr (2010 and 2012) with favorable weather conditions for the occurrence of lodging. Increasing rates of N resulted in increased seed yield in 2009 and 2012, regardless of whether fungicide was used or not. Increasing rates of N also increased the severity of pasmo disease in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and of lodging severity in 2010 and 2012. The increase in disease severity due to N occurred in the absence of fungicide in 2011 and when fungicide was applied in 2012, while in 2010 just the effect of N on the two fungicide treatments combined was significant. Only low levels of disease severity (near 20%) were observed when fungicide was applied in 2011, while extreme disease severity (near 100%) occurred in 2012 at all levels of N when fungicide was not applied. The increase in lodging, as N rates increased, was observed only in the absence of fungicide, in both years. The occurrence of lodging took place late in the development of flax.
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".