Importance and causal agents of root rot on field pea and lentil on the Canadian prairies, 2014–2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveys of pulse crops across the Canadian prairies were undertaken between 2014 and 2017 to assess the distribution and severity of root rot of field pea and lentil, to identify the most important causal agents, and to compare the efficiency of culturing techniques with multiplex PCR. Root rot was present in every pea and lentil field surveyed in all three provinces. When assessed based on province and soil zone, moderate to severe symptoms (severity > 3 on a 1–7 scale) occurred in 25–99% of pea fields, but only 8–34% of lentil fields. Root rot severity on both crops was higher in growing seasons with high precipitation and was lower in drier years, but only lentil showed any difference associated with soil zone, with lower severity in the brown soil zone. This study demonstrated that Aphanomyces euteiches occurs across the Prairie region, where it caused moderate to severe injury on many field pea crops. Fusarium avenaceum was the most common pathogen identified in both culturing and PCR analyses, but other Fusarium spp., together with Pythium spp. and Rhizoctonia solani, were also components of the complex. Use of PCR for pathogen identification routinely resulted in identification of many pathogens from an infected root, whereas culturing and isolation resulted in only one or two pathogens per root. PCR was extremely important for assessing the impact of A. euteiches, which was almost never identified using culturing approaches. This observation explains why A. euteiches was not initially recognized as an important pathogen of pulses in the region.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".