Morphological characterization of fungi associated with the ascochyta blight complex and pathogenic variability of Mycosphaerella pinodes on field pea crops in central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field pea crops in central Alberta were surveyed for ascochyta blight from 2011 to 2012 and fungal isolates were recovered from foliar lesions on selected plants. Cultural and microscopic characterization of the 275 isolates obtained revealed that 272 were of Mycosphaerella pinodes and three were of Phoma medicaginis var. pinodella. Ascochyta pisi or Phoma koolunga were not identified. Isolates of M. pinodes were divided into two groups,GI and GII, based on visual assessment of culture characteristics. GI isolates(light to dark, mostly gray colony color; pycnidial distribution radial and concentric; conidia10.5–14.5 × 4.2–6.2 μm most with one septum, occasionally two, constricted at the septum;spore mass light buff to flesh color) were predominant(83%), while GII isolates(dark to gray colony color; pycnidia abundant; conidia 8–16 × 3.5–6.2 μm most with 1 septum, constricted at the septum; spore mass light buff to flesh color) were less common(17%). The cultures of GII isolates were similar to recent descriptions of A. pisi, but they differed in spore color. In a host differential study, 13 pathotypes of M. pinodes were identified from 110 single-spore isolates. Pathotype I was predominant(88 isolates) and virulent on all nine differential genotypes. The other pathotypes(pathotypes II–XIII) were rare(1–6 isolates of each).Comparison of the present results with earlier studies suggests that pathotype I has been prevalent for many years, and that its aggressiveness on the host differentials has increased over time. Emphasis should be placed on breeding for resistance to M. pinodes in field pea cultivars intended for deployment in central Alberta.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".