Dependence of species composition and development of root rots pathogens of spring barley on abiotic factors in the Eastern Forest-Steppe of Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root rots of spring barley have become widespread and cause a significant damage to agriculture. The poorer the culture of agriculture is, the higher are the losses from the root rots. Non-observance of crop rotation, the presence of monoculture of one or another species of cereals and poor agricultural technique lead to deterioration of the structure and depletion of the soil, create the unfavourable conditions for the development of plants, and facilitate the accumulation of pathogenic fungi in the soil and plant remains. Abiotic factors significantly affect the species composition and pathogens of the root rots, which requires the specification of these indices parameters, especially under the conditions of the Eastern Forest-Steppe of Ukraine. We have found that Helminthosporium and Fusarium root rots of spring barley are the most widespread in the zone of the Eastern Forest-Steppe of Ukraine, the pathogenic organisms of which are fungi of the genus Drechslera spp. and Fusarium spp. The development and prevalence of root rots directly depend on the weather conditions during the vegetation period of spring barley and are intensified with a considerable amount of precipitation, high air humidity (60-80%), moderate temperature (19-20° Ði), and hydrothermal coefficient of 1,2-1,4. Under the conditions of the Eastern Forest-Steppe of Ukraine these diseases are taking their dynamic courses with a significant increase in the later stages of the plant-feeder development. Keywords: Root rots of spring barley; Bipolaris sorokiniana Shoem.; Fusarium spp.; abiotic factors References: Bilyk, M. O., & Kulieshov, A. V. (2006). Praktykum z fitosanitarnoho monitorynhu i prohnozu. Kharkiv. (in Ukrainian). Boyko, A. K., & Radyina, A. A. (2004). Vliyanie temperaturyi i otnositelnoy vlajnosti vozduha na porajennost kolosa yarovogo yachmenya vozbuditelyami fuzarioza. Ðntegrovaniy zahist roslin na pochatku XXI stolNttya. Proceed. Int Conf. Kiev: ÐZR. (in Russian). Engle, J. S., Lipps, P. E., & Mills, D. (2004). Spot blotch and common root rot. Frankfort: Ohio University press. Fernandez, M. R., Holzgang, G., & Turkington, T. K. (2009). Common root rot of barley in Saskatchewan and north-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 31(1), 96-102. doi:10.1080/07060660909507577 Fernandez, M. R., & Conner, R. L. (2011). Root and crown rot of wheat. Prairie Soils Crops J, 4, 151-157. Kumar, J., Schafer, P., Huckelhoven, R., Langen, G., Baltruschat, H., Stein, E., Nagarajan, S., Kogel, H. K. (2002). Bipolaris sorokiniana, a cereal pathogen of global concern: cytological and molecular approaches towards better control. Mol Plant Pathol, 3, 185-195 Markov, I. L., Bashta, O. V., Hentosh, D. T., Dermenko, O. P., & Pikovskyi, M. I. (2017). Silskohospodarska fitopatolohiia. Kyiv: Interservis. (in Ukrainian). Mathre, D. E., Johnston, R. H., & Grey, W. E. (2003). Diagnosis of common root rot of wheat and barley. Plant Health Progress, 4(1). doi:10.1094/PHP-2003-0819-01-DG. Meldrum, S. I., Platz, G. J., & Ogle, H. J. (2004). Pathotypes of Cochliobolus sativus on barley in Australia. Aust Plant Pathol, 33, 109–114. Naumova, N. A. (1970). Analiz semyan na gribnuyu bakterialnuyu infektsiyu. Leningrad. (in Russian). Peresyipkin, V. F., Tyuterev, S. L., & Batalova, T. S. (1991). Bolezni zernovyih kultur pri intensivnyih tehnologiyah ih vozdelyivaniya. Moscow: Agropromizdat. (in Russian). Prodaievych, T., & Hentosh, D. T. (2015). Osoblyvosti rozvytku korenevykh hnylei yachmeniu v umovakh SFH “Tsabii L.V.” Kirovohradskoi oblasti. Dosiahnennia i perspektyvy v zakhysti roslyn vid khvorob. Materialy I Vseukrainskoi studentskoi naukovoi konferentsii (26-27 bereznia 2015 roku, m. Kyiv). Kyiv: TOV “TsP KOMPRYNT” (in Ukrainian). Stack, W. R. (1992). Bipolaris. In: Singleton, L. L., Mihail, J. D., and Rush, C. M. (eds.). Methods for Research on Soilborne Pathogenic Fungi. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN. Tinline, R. D., Diehl, J. A., & Spurr, D. T. (1994). Assessment methods for evaluating common root rot in spring wheat and infection of subterranean plant parts by the causal fungus Cochliobolus sativus. Can J Plant Pathol, 16, 207-214.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".