MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2183979567 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.37.3.593

Screening of Strawberry Germplasm for Resistance to the Two-spotted Spider Mite

2002· article· en· W2183979567 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sedat Serçe, James F. Hancock

Notice bibliographique

RevueHortScience · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueBerry genetics and cultivation research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGermplasmSpider miteBiologyResistance (ecology)SpiderMiteHorticultureBotanyAgronomyZoology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

River-10) were studied. ‘Honeoye’, DHL 1336, and Montreal River-10 are short-day (SD) genotypes, whereas the rest are day-neutral (DN). More information about the F. virginiana genotypes can be found in Hancock et al. (2001a). Runners from these genotypes were rooted into pots under natural long days in a greenhouse at Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, in late Aug. 2000. Then, in late Oct. 2000, plants were moved to three growth chambers at 18 °C and 6-, 8-, and 10-h day lengths with ≈600, 450, and 360 μmol·s·m photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), respectively. PAR was varied with day length so that the total energy received was equal in each chamber. Each treatment consisted of five plants of each genotype in a randomized complete-block design. The plants were held in the growth chambers for a total of 60 d; the infestation of TSM was noted ≈30 d after the plants were transferred to the growth chambers. When the experiment was terminated, genotypes were assigned a mite damage score (MDS) based on visual symptoms using a 0– 10 scale [0 = no visual symptoms, 10 = most mite damage (complete coverage of leaves with webbing)]. Three leaflets were randomly picked from each plant, and the number of mites (MNO) on their undersides was counted under a dissecting microscope. The surface area of these leaflets was measured and mite number per cm leaf area (MNA) was calculated. Analysis of variance tables were constructed for all variables and least significant difference (LSD) was calculated for main effects using the SAS program (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). Genotype was significant (P < 0.01) for all traits (Table 1). MDS was significantly correlated (P < 0.001) with both MNO (r = 0.40) and MNA (r = 0.35), and MNO and MNA were also positively correlated (r = 0.58). The means of MDS and MNA were progressively reduced at 6-, 8-, and 10-h photoperiod treatments (Table 2). Mean MNO did not follow this trend exactly as mite numbers under 8 and 10 h were about the same, but numbers at 6 h were still highest. When Patterson et al. (1994) compared resistance of ‘Redchief’ and ‘Tribute’ to TSM under, 8and 24-h day conditions, they also found the highest mite numbers under the shorter day treatment (8 h) on both cultivars. Overall, the F. virginiana genotypes, Frederick-9 and Montreal River-10, proved most resistant to mite infestation (Table 2). Montreal River-10 was consistently in the lowest significance group for MDS, MNA and MNO, regardless of day length. Frederick-9 was in the lowest significance group for all the treatments except MDS under 8-h day lengths. The least resistance was generally found in the F. ×ananassa cultivars Ft. Laramie and Honeoye. The TSM resistance that we have identified in F. virginiana may prove useful in strawberry breeding, as Montreal River-10 and Frederick-9 are considered among the most elite native genotypes and have already been incorporated into breeding populations (Hancock et al., 2001a, 2001b). Chaplin et al. (1968, 1970) and Barritt and Shanks (1981) have reported high heritability for TSM resistance, and a relatively high ratio of general to specific combining ability. We still need to test the durability of our resistance in the field; however, genotype resistance has often been shown to be stable across environments (Cary et al., 1995; Medina et al., 1999), and the laboratory rankings of resistance have in general agreed with field scores (Gimenez-Ferrer et al., 1993).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,732
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,354

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,075
Tête enseignante GPT0,281
Écart entre enseignants0,206 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHortScienceMême sujetBerry genetics and cultivation researchTravaux en français237 207