Effect of Host Resistance and Fungicide Application on Clubroot Pathotype 6 in Green Cabbage and Napa Cabbage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field trials were conducted to evaluate resistance to clubroot ( Plasmodiophora brassicae , pathotype 6) in green cabbage ( Brassica oleracea var. capitata) and napa cabbage ( Brassica rapa ssp. pekinensis) at sites in southern Ontario in 2009 and 2010. The reaction of green cabbage cultivars Kilaton, Tekila, Kilaxy, and Kilaherb and the commercial standard cultivars, Bronco or Atlantis, were evaluated on organic (two site-years) and mineral soils (two site-years) that were naturally infested with the clubroot pathogen. In addition, fluazinam fungicide was drench applied to one treatment of the commercial standard cultivar immediately after transplanting. The napa cabbage cultivars Yuki, Deneko, Bilko, and Mirako (in 2009) and Emiko, Mirako, Yuki, and China Gold (in 2010) were evaluated only on organic soils (two site-years). At harvest, the roots of each plant were assessed for clubroot incidence and severity. Also, plant and head characteristics of the resistant green cabbage cultivars were evaluated at one site in 2010. The green cabbage cultivars Kilaton, Tekila, Kilaxy, and Kilaherb were resistant to pathotype 6 (0% to 3.8% incidence), but ‘Bronco’ was susceptible (64% to 100% incidence). Application of fluazinam reduced clubroot severity on ‘Bronco’ by 6% at one of three sites. Resistance was more effective in reducing clubroot than application of fluazinam. Plant and head characteristics of the resistant cultivars were similar to those of ‘Bronco’ treated with fluazinam. Napa cabbage cultivars Yuki, Deneko, Bilko, Emiko, and China Gold were resistant to clubroot (0% to 13% incidence), and ‘Mirako’ was highly susceptible (87% to 92% incidence). We conclude that the clubroot resistance available in several cultivars of green and napa cabbage was effective against P. brassicae pathotype 6.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".