Evaluation of lime products for clubroot (<i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i>) management in canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) cropping systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clubroot, caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae, is an important soilborne disease of canola (Brassica napus) in Alberta, Canada. As clubroot prefers acidic soils, the application of lime to increase soil pH may reduce disease. Replicated field plot experiments were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of hydrated lime for clubroot management. In 2017, moderate (11.4 t ha−1) to high rates (12.7 t ha−1) of hydrated lime reduced the index of disease (ID) by 35–91% in a susceptible canola cultivar 8 weeks after seeding. In contrast, no effect of lime treatment was observed in the 2018 field trials, due to several environmental factors. A greenhouse study compared the efficacy of hydrated lime and limestone in reducing ID in susceptible and resistant canola cultivars, at different application rates and inoculum concentrations. In treatments that did not receive lime, ID was very high (92–100%) in the susceptible and low (9–13%) in the resistant canola. The application of hydrated lime at 4.7, 8.1, 11.4 and 14.8 t ha−1 eliminated visible symptoms in both cultivars, whereas limestone reduced the ID only at the two lowest inoculum concentrations. Root tissues from the same study were analyzed by quantitative PCR to measure P. brassicae proliferation in planta. Inoculum concentration and the type and rate of lime significantly affected the amount of P. brassicae DNA present in the root tissue. Repeated trials with less virulent inoculum indicated similar trends. Hydrated lime may represent a more effective tool than limestone to manage P. brassicae on canola in highly infested soils.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".