Essential Oils in the Control of Anthracnose on ‘Prata Ana’ Banana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative forms of disease control in fruits have been researched in an attempt to minimize the negative effects of chemical control on men and environment. The aim of this study was to determine the best concentration of essential oils to control the development of Colletotrichum musae and anthracnose intensity in ‘Prata Anã’ banana. In order to inhibit germination, mycelial growth and sporulation, four essential oils of clove (Eugenia caryophyllus), tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia), thyme (Thymus vulgaris) and ginger (Zingiber officinale) species were used at concentrations of 2, 4, 6 and 8 μL. In fruits, the same essential oils were applied at concentrations of 80, 160, 240 and 320 μL to evaluate the incidence and severity of anthracnose. Clove and thyme oils were the most efficient in inhibiting mycelial growth, germination and sporulation at all concentrations tested. The volatile compounds present in clove and thyme oils provide complete inhibition of fungal growth. Tea tree and ginger oils have the ability to suppress anthracnose in ‘Prata Anã’ banana. Concentrations of 160 μL of ginger oil, 160 and 240 μL of tea tree oil reduced the anthracnose severity in fruits. Ginger and tea tree essential oils have the potential to control banana anthracnose, reducing the anthracnose incidence in fruits by 48% and 24%, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".