Spore dispersal patterns of Diatrypaceae and Botryosphaeriaceae species in Australian vineyards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botryosphaeriaceae species infect grapevines via wounds. A previous study isolated Botryosphaeriaceae at higher frequencies from the bark than the underlying wood of asymptomatic grapevines canes from vineyards,suggesting they were latent on surface tissues. This study investigated the colonization of the bark as a saprophytic link to infection of the underlying wood. The bark of trunks of Sauvignon blanc and Pinot noir potted vines were inoculated by spraying an area of 3 cm length with ~1 mL of a Neofusicoccum luteum or N. parvum conidial suspensions (10⁴/mL). Control vines were inoculated with sterile water. After 1 hour (T1), 2 days (T2) or 7 days (T3) a cut was made in the bark and through to the wood 1 cm above the inoculation area using a sterile scalpel. After 24 h, isolations were carried out from surface sterilized bark and wood. Infection incidence did not differ significantly between species or grapevine cultivar. Infection incidence of the bark was 100% and associated wood of the central inoculated section was 76.3%, 83.3% and 90.2% for T1, T2 and T3, respectively indicating bark infection progressed rapidly into the adjacent wood. Infection of bark and wood 1 cm above the inoculation point increased with incubation time, being 25% for bark and wood at T1 and 71% and 67% for bark and wood, respectively at T3. Infection of the bark and wood 1 cm below the inoculated area was 0%. This study showed that the pathogens remained latent in the bark and, when the cane was wounded, that the pathogen progressed towards the wound. Fluorescent microscopic observations of bark and underlying wood sections of shoots inoculated onto the bark, but without wounding, showed germinating conidia and mycelium in the bark near lenticels, and mycelia in the underlying wood, indicating that the pathogens had entered through lenticels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".