Effect of fungicide seed treatments on root pathogens of cereal crops under field conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is of importance to reduce the spread of Fusarium graminearum to western regions of the Canadian prairies where Fusarium head blight has so far occurred to a limited extent. Determining the effectiveness of fungicides against F. graminearum in infected seed under various growing conditions will help design a comprehensive strategy for preventing the spread of this pathogen. Field trials at various locations in eastern Saskatchewan were conducted (2003-2005) to examine the performance of registered and experimental fungicides on Fusarium colonization of subcrown internodes (SIs) of plants derived from Fusarium-infected barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), common (Triticum aestivum L.) and durum [T. turgidum L. ssp. durum (Desf.) Husn.] wheat seed, and on SI discoloration. Among the fungi isolated from discolored SIs were Fusarium spp., including F. graminearum, and Cochliobolus sativus. Fusarium graminearum infections were mostly seed-borne whereas infection by other fungi appeared to be mostly soil-borne. Compared with the untreated infected control, the combined seed treatments reduced discoloration of SIs, but no single fungicide reduced discoloration consistently across site-years or crops. Similarly, no product consistently reduced the isolation of F. graminearum or other Fusarium pathogens, although some fungicides appeared to be more effective than others in reducing isolation of F. graminearum or C. sativus. Our observations agree with results from a controlled-environment study of effects of seed treatments on F. graminearum colonization of plants derived from infected common and durum wheat seed, thus confirming that treatment of F. graminearum-infected seed with fungicides will not likely prevent the spread of this pathogen.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".