The chickpea root rot complex in Saskatchewan, Canada- detection of emerging pathogens and their relative pathogenicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chickpea fields in Saskatchewan, one of the three Canadian prairie provinces, have suffered from major health issues since 2019, but no definitive cause has been determined. Field surveys were conducted in Saskatchewan in 2020 and 2021 in order to develop a better understanding of root rot pathogens associated with chickpea. Root samples were analyzed for the presence of 11 potential chickpea root rot pathogens using end-point PCR. Fusarium redolens, F. solani and F. avenaceum were the most prevalent pathogen species detected in both survey years. The cause of Fusarium wilt in chickpea, F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris, was not detected in either year, nor were Phytophthora spp. and Verticillium albo-atrum. Berkeleyomyces sp. was detected in one field in each year, and Verticillium dahliae was detected in several fields sampled in 2021. These two pathogens have not been reported previously on chickpea in Saskatchewan. The prevalence of Fusarium species obtained from 2021 root isolations was similar to that determined by molecular tests, with frequent isolation of F. redolens, F. oxysporum, F. avenaceum and F. solani. A series of indoor pathogenicity testing compared root disease severity caused by a selection of 16 isolates of six Fusarium species and single isolates of V. dahliae, Berkeleyomyces sp. and Macrophomina phaseolina. Results showed that select isolates of F. avenaceum were the most aggressive of the Fusarium isolates on chickpea. Despite relatively low inoculum density, a highly aggressive isolate of F. avenaceum caused severe stunting and more root rot symptoms than single isolates of V. dahliae, Berkeleyomyces sp. and M. phaseolina under the test conditions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".