Seasonal Susceptibility of Grapevine Pruning Wounds and Cane Colonization in Catalonia, Spain Following Artificial Infection with<i>Diplodia seriata</i>and<i>Phaeomoniella chlamydospora</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diplodia seriata and Phaeomoniella chlamydospora are two fungal pathogens associated with grapevine trunk diseases worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the period during which grapevine pruning wounds remain susceptible to fungal infection and to describe the colonization of canes artificially inoculated with these pathogens. In the first experiment, pruning wounds made in either fall or winter were separately inoculated with each pathogen at different times after pruning. Wound susceptibility to both pathogens decreased as the period between pruning and inoculation increased, from high percentages recorded in the first inoculation round (D. seriata, 97.5% and P. chlamydospora, 75%) down to approximately 10% 12 weeks after pruning. Pruning wounds remained more susceptible to D. seriata after a late pruning in winter whereas no overall seasonal changes in wound susceptibility were detected for P. chlamydospora. In the second experiment, canes were pruned by leaving two different lengths between the top node and the pruning wound before inoculations. Pathogens were recovered at different incubation periods and from different sites along the canes to estimate fungal cane colonization. A longer pruned internode made cane colonization by P. chlamydospora difficult, as indicated by fungal recoveries lower than 10% at the lowest recovery site, whereas D. seriata was less inhibited.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".