Effect of canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) cultivar rotation on <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> pathotype composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) disease is managed mainly by planting clubroot resistant (CR) canola (Brassica napus). New pathotypes of P. brassicae have emerged recently, however, which are virulent on most CR canola cultivars. To understand the impact of cultivar rotation on pathotype abundance, greenhouse experiments were conducted in which different canola cultivar rotations were grown in a soil mix containing equal amounts of pathotypes 5X and 3, which are virulent and avirulent, respectively, on CR canola. The rotation treatments included: T1, the same susceptible cultivar planted over four cycles; T2, the same CR cultivar planted over four cycles; and T3, different CR cultivars planted in each cycle. Clubroot severity increased from cycles one to four in all treatments, with the exception of one CR cultivar in T3 that may carry a different source of resistance. Pathogen populations were recovered with a susceptible bait crop and pathotyped on the differentials of Williams plus a CR host (B. napus ‘Mendel’). The percentage of galls classified as pathotype 5X in T1 declined from 50% to 6.7% over the course of the experiment, while galls classified as pathotype 5X increased from 50% to 66.7% in both T2 and T3. Quantitative PCR analysis of the soil with pathotype 5X-specific primers generally confirmed an increase in 5X DNA. The results suggest that continuous planting of CR canola favours a rapid proliferation of virulent pathotypes of P. brassicae, as indicated by the increases in pathotype 5X observed in this study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".