Mycobiomes of tomato plants with vine decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tomato vine decline (TVD) in south-western Ontario is a disease with symptoms that include premature plant senescence, root browning and rotting, and fruit yield reduction. Soilborne fungi cause similar vine decline symptoms in melons and potatoes. To identify which potential pathogens might be associated with TVD, we undertook both a DNA and culture based survey of the fungi found in roots and rhizospheres of field and lab grown plants. DNA finger printing revealed that roots are colonized by significantly different fungal populations than those found in rhizospheres or the soil in which they are grown. The fungal species associated with TVD resistant ‘Beaufort’ and ‘RST-04–105-T’ rootstocks were also consistently different from those in the TVD susceptible commercial variety ‘Heinz 2401ʹ. Mycobiomes in ‘Heinz 2401ʹ roots and rhizospheres changed significantly when plants were grown in sterile sand, TVD infested soil, or in the same soil that had been amended with molasses. Internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region sequences derived from PCR product clones or fungal cultures isolated from roots identified 53 different fungal species. Annotated DNA fingerprints showed that roots of all plants grown in soil contained Verticillium dahliae, a destructive vascular pathogen of tomatoes, while only susceptible ‘Heinz 2401ʹ roots were infected with the obligate parasite Olpidium virulentus. While these two pathogens may both be reducing tomato yields in Ontario, it appears that existing tomato rootstock varieties may be resistant to infection by O. virulentus. This poorly characterized soil-transmitted Chrytidiomycete may be contributing to TVD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".