Physical Modes of Action of Fungicides Against Apple Scab: Timing Is Everything, but Dose Matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of currently available fungicides against apple scab, caused by the fungal pathogen Venturia inaequalis, was investigated in relation to when growers spray (ahead, during, or after rain) and how the spray reaches the target. The adaxial surface of individual leaves of potted trees were sprayed and then inoculated with ascospores of V. inaequalis, to establish dose-response curves for each fungicide. Discriminatory doses providing 50 and 90% symptom inhibition (EC50 and EC90, respectively) in sprays mimicking applications ahead of rain were used for experiments imitating alternative spray timings. Sprays were either applied during the spore germination phase or early or late after infection onset (either 336 or 672 degree-hours after inoculation, respectively), corresponding to grower spray schedules. Experiments were also carried out with sprays applied on the abaxial leaf surface to investigate fungicide efficacy through the leaf lamina. For all fungicides, the best efficacy was observed when sprays were applied during germination, followed by applications ahead of inoculation. Some products maintained equal or better efficacy at early infection, while efficacy in late infection dropped for all products, clearly indicating that this spray timing should be avoided. Some products with postinfection efficacy also showed translaminar efficacy. The close relationship found between EC50 of the active ingredients on potted trees and the label rate could help improve spraying decisions and reduce costs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".