Evaluation of Fall and Spring Lime Applications for the Management of Clubroot of Canola in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clubroot, a soilborne disease caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae, poses a significant threat to canola (Brassica napus) production. The use of lime to elevate soil pH shows promise for clubroot management. In this study, limestone and hydrated lime (HL) were evaluated for their effectiveness in controlling clubroot across four field sites in 2019 to 2020 and 2021 to 2022, and in greenhouse trials conducted in 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021. The treatments included an untreated control (UTC), limestone applied at rates of 5 and 10 t ha−1 in either fall or spring, spring application of HL at 5.0 and 10 t ha−1, and a combination of fall limestone application with spring HL application at rates of 2.5 or 5.0 t ha−1 each. The canola hybrids ‘45H31’ (susceptible) and ‘CS2000’ (moderately resistant) were included in the greenhouse experiments, while ‘45H31’ was used in the field. Significant reductions (P < 0.05) in clubroot severity relative to the UTCs were observed in all lime treatments in the field or greenhouse, except for the 5.0 t ha−1 spring limestone application at one field site in 2021 to 2022. Increases in soil pH and reductions in soil inoculum density were recorded for all lime treatments. The most consistent reductions in clubroot severity across sites and years were obtained with fall limestone or spring HL application at 10 t ha−1, or the combination of fall limestone and spring HL at 5 t ha−1 each. Applying limestone in the fall may present a viable option for managing clubroot in canola. [Formula: see text] Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".