Grapevine Response to Pyroligneous Acid: Antifungal, Physiological, and Biochemical Impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botrytis cinerea is a major fungal pathogen causing significant economic losses in grapevines worldwide. To address the environmental concerns associated with overreliance on synthetic fungicides, this study investigated the antifungal efficacy of varying concentrations of pyroligneous acid (PA) (0, 2, and 4%) compared to a commercial fungicide (Switch®) against B. cinerea in grapevines (Vitis vinifera ‘Himrod’), as well as its physiological and biochemical responses. Our preliminary in vitro assays using the poisoned food method showed that PA significantly (p < 0.05) inhibited B. cinerea mycelial growth by approximately 0.70-, and 1-fold, respectively, compared to the 0% PA during the three weeks of observation. The results also demonstrated that the 2% PA and 4% PA treatments, as well as the Switch® application, significantly (p < 0.05) reduced average lesion length by 0.19-, 0.52-, and 0.85-fold, respectively, compared to the untreated plants with Botrytis alone. Both the 4% PA and Switch® significantly (p < 0.05) increased the maximum quantum efficiency of photosystems II (Fv/Fm) and potential photosynthetic capacity (Fv/Fo) by approximately 0.02-fold and 0.1-fold, respectively, compared to the untreated plants with Botrytis alone. The 2 and 4% PA treatments also increased total carotenoids and flavonoids. Further molecular studies are recommended to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the observed physiological and biochemical changes.
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".