MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747774892 · doi:10.1094/pdis-05-17-0689-re

<i>Phytophthora</i>Contamination in a Nursery and Its Potential Dispersal into the Natural Environment

2017· article· en· W2747774892 on OpenAlexaff
Agnes V. Simamora, Trudy Paap, Kay Howard, M. Stukely, G.E.St.J. Hardy, Treena I. Burgess

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersDirektorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi
KeywordsBiologyRevegetationSowingBiological dispersalSeedlingPotting soilBiosecurityPhytophthoraAgronomyContaminationHorticultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A detailed site investigation of a eucalypt nursery suffering disease losses revealed the causal agent to be Phytophthora boodjera. The pathogen was detected in vegetation surrounding the nursery production area, including the lawn, under the production benches during the growing season, and, most importantly, from plant debris in used trays. However, it was not found in the container substrate, water supplies, or production equipment or on the workers themselves. The sterilization methods used by the nursery were shown to be ineffective, indicating that a more rigorous method was required. Boiling trays for 15 min or steaming at 65°C for 60 min eradicated P. boodjera. This pathogen was more pathogenic to the eucalypts tested in their early seedling stage than P. cinnamomi. Tracing of out-planting to revegetation sites showed that P. boodjera was able to spread into the environment. Dispersal via out-planting to native vegetation may affect seedling recruitment and drive long-term shifts in native plant species. Inadequate nursery hygiene increases the risk of an outbreak and can limit the success of biosecurity efforts as well as damage conservation efforts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations52
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207