Effects of <i>Fusarium avenaceum</i> and <i>Rhizoctonia solani</i> on the growth of soybean in saline soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soybean (Glycine max) acreage on the Canadian Prairies has increased rapidly in recent years. Production has expanded into semiarid regions where irrigation and drainage problems often result in the accumulation of salts in the soil. Fusarium avenaceum and Rhizoctonia solani are the two dominant pathogens in the disease complex that cause root rot and seedling blight of legume crops on the Canadian Prairies. The effects of F. avenaceum or R. solani in combination with soil salinity on soybean root rot were evaluated under greenhouse and mini-plot conditions. As expected, inoculation with F. avenaceum or R. solani consistently reduced seedling emergence and increased root rot severity in soybean. At high soil electrical conductivity values and inoculum densities, seedling emergence decreased and root rot severity increased in soybean in both trials with F. avenaceum and R. solani. Twenty short-season soybean cultivars that were well suited for production in Alberta were evaluated for their reactions to inoculation with F. avenaceum or R. solani in a saline soil (21.1 dS m−1). High seedling emergence was observed for cultivars 900Y61, P002T04R, 900Y01, TH27005RR, P001T34R, and 900Y81 in the non-inoculated control, for P002T04R and 900Y61 in the F. avenaceum treatment, and for 900Y61, 900Y81, and 900Y71 in the R. solani treatment. Root rot severity was low for cultivars NSC Portage and 900Y61 in the non-inoculated control and P002T004R in the F. avenaceum treatment. The cultivar 900Y61 also consistently had lower disease severity over the trials in the mini-plot test.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".