Root disease and fungal populations in organic crops under different tillage–cropping systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There has been a steady expansion in organic production in the Canadian Prairies because of higher consumer demand. Thus, increasing the sustainability of organic systems would be important. An organic trial was conducted in the semi‐arid Prairies (2010–2015) with two tillage intensities (low vs. high) in a simplified [spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–forage pea ( Pisum sativum L.) green manure (GM)] and a diversified (spring wheat–oilseed–pulse–GM) rotation. In 2013–2015, the impact of these systems on root rot was examined on spring wheat, pulses, and GM crops. Several Fusarium spp. were more abundant in GM and pulses than spring wheat, suggesting that they could be a source of inoculum, especially of F. avenaceum (Fr.:Fr.) Sacc. (teleomorph Gibberella avenacea Cook), for Fusarium diseases in cereals including Fusarium head blight. Under different environments, tillage–rotation systems had an impact on root disease and fungal populations, some of which have biocontrol capabilities. There was no difference among systems for root rot in forage pea, while the low tillage‐diversified rotation had the lowest root rot in spring wheat but was associated with more Fusarium spp. For all crops, most Fusaria were not associated with root rot severity. Cochliobolus sativus (Ito & Kurib.) Drechs. ex Dast. [anamorph Bipolaris sorokiniana (Sacc.) Shoemaker] accounted the most for root rot in spring wheat and was favored by intensive tillage and simplified rotations. The Shannon diversity index (H') of fungal species in spring wheat was higher in the diversified rotation under both tillage intensities than when spring wheat alternated with GM in the simplified rotation, especially under high tillage. In forage pea, H' was higher than in spring wheat, but did not differ among tillage–rotation systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".