<b>Tar Spot of Corn: Recent Insights and an Interpretable Weather–Imagery Pipeline for Disease Prediction</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tar spot of corn, caused by <i>Phyllachora maydis </i>(Maubl.), is characterized by black, tar-like lesions. The pathogen can reduce photosynthetic capacity, causing premature senescence and yield losses. After a decade in the U.S., <i>P. maydis</i> has resulted in an estimated loss of 937,000 bushels of corn in the U.S. and Canada. Now five years since the first review of tar spot, our understanding of this pathogen has substantially increased. Herein, the first section is a review of the recent advancements in knowledge of pathogen biology, inoculation protocols, modeling, and disease management, addressing ongoing challenges in tar spot dynamics. In the second section, an experimental pipeline comparing logistic regression and neural networks for interpretable tar spot prediction was explored. Current single-source models might fail to capture the full range of pathosystem variability, potentially leading to error biases and inaccurate predictions. Accordingly, we explored an innovative approach using multi-source data (weather and vegetation indices) to predict 1% tar spot severity at the ear leaf using neural networks (NN) and logistic regression (LR) models. Experiments conducted in Indiana (2021-2022) gathered 791 disease observations, 52 variables from multispectral images, and 90 weather station variables. Five modeling experiments were evaluated using different data sources, feature selection methods, and model performance. We used SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to enhance NN interpretability. Results showed NNs models outperformed LR in accuracy and specificity, particularly with vegetation indices (94.4% accuracy). LR models demonstrated higher sensitivity (96.1%) with weather data, suggesting strong prediction of tar spot at 1%. While data fusion showed inconsistent performance improvements, SHAP analysis and logistic regression pinpointed the minimum temperature during the night and relative humidity during the day, as well the standard deviation of Renormalized Difference Vegetation Index (RDVI) and Triangular Vegetation Index (TVI) as critical predictors. Future research should expand datasets across multiple locations, refine predictive thresholds, standardize disease assessment methods, and further integrate remote sensing technologies to enhance practical disease management applications to safeguard corn productivity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".