MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390586346 · doi:10.1016/j.virol.2024.109981

Unusual outbreaks of curly top disease in processing tomato fields in northern California in 2021 and 2022 were caused by a rare strain of beet curly top virus and facilitated by extreme weather events

2024· article· en· W4390586346 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tomás A. Melgarejo, Margaret K. Cespedes, Lifang Chen, Thomas A. Turini, Patrícia Lazicki, Amber Vinchesi-Vahl, R. L. Gilbertson

Bibliographic record

VenueVirology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia Department of Food and AgricultureCentre Technologique des Résidus IndustrielsCalifornia Tomato Research InstituteNew Hampshier Community Development Finance Authority
KeywordsOutbreakBiologyStrain (injury)AgronomyPathosystemEcologyVirologyHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the western United States, curly top disease (CTD) is caused by beet curly top virus (BCTV). In California, CTD causes economic loss to processing tomato production in central and southern areas but, historically, not in the north. Here, we document unusual CTD outbreaks in processing tomato fields in the northern production area in 2021 and 2022, and show that these were caused by the rare spinach curly top strain (BCTV-SpCT). These outbreaks were associated with proximity of fields to foothills and unusually hot, dry, and windy spring weather conditions, possibly by altering migrations of the beet leafhopper (BLH) vector from locations with BCTV-SpCT reservoirs. Support for this hypothesis came from the failure to observe CTD outbreaks and BLH migrations in 2023, when spring weather conditions were cool and wet. Our results show the climate-induced emergence of a rare plant virus strain to cause an economically important disease in a new crop and location.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirologySame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207