Evaluation of NPGS Germplasm for Resistance to Sugar Beet Root Maggot, 2022
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Twenty-nine sugar beet germplasm lines from the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) at Pullman, WA, and two resistant (F1024 and F1016) and one susceptible (C817) check cultivars were screened for resistance to sugar beet root maggot (SBRM), an insect pest of sugar beet causing significant yield loss in growing areas of the upper Midwest and western states of the United States and adjacent Canadian provinces. The SBRM evaluation was conducted in an SBRM insect nursery at St. Thomas, ND. The germplasm lines, along with the resistance and susceptible checks, were planted (density of 68,062 seeds/A) on 4 Jun 22. Each plot included two rows of 8.5-m long, and between-row space was set at 56 cm. A randomized complete block design was used for resistance evaluation with three replications included. The sugar beet nursery field was managed according to standard cultural practices as conducted in northern North Dakota. The evaluation relied on endemic field insect infestation that caused feeding damage on roots by SBRM. The plots were rated for size and area of feeding scars on the roots on 23 Aug. Ten roots from middle of two rows in each plot were manually dug out and were then hand cleaned in water using a brush to remove all soil on roots to clearly show insect feeding scars. Damage on the roots was rated using a widely accepted scale of 0–9 (0 = no damage, 1–3 = minor damage from few feeding scars, 4–6 = moderate to heavy damage from large feeding scars covering less than 25% of the root surface, and 7–9 = severe damage from numerous feeding scars covering over 25% of the root surface), and lines with ratings of 3 or less were considered resistant. The categorical damage rating data were rank transformed and were then analyzed in SAS (Ver. 9.4) using the mixed linear models (Proc MIXED) with germplasm lines as fixed effect and blocks as random effect, and Fisher’s protected least significant difference (α = 0.05) was used for mean comparisons with nontransformed means are presented in Table 1. Means root damage rating within column followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05). aPlant registration number is according to records in NPGS database (https://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/). bTen roots per plot were evaluated for root damage caused by SBRM using a scale of 0–9 (0 = no damage, 1–3 = minor damage from few feeding scars, 4–6 = moderate to heavy damage from large feeding scars covering less than 25% of root surface, and 7–9 = severe damage from numerous feeding scars covering over 25% of root surface). Within a column, means followed by the same letter did not differ significantly based on Fisher’s protected LSD. cP > F was the probability associated with the F-value. LSD = Fisher’s protected least significant difference value (α = 0.05). The SBRM pressure was uniform according to damage on roots of the susceptible check and susceptible commercial varieties on the border. No severe other disease problems were observed in the plot area. The two resistant checks F1024 and F1016 both have damage ratings around 2, which agree with observations from previous years. Of the total 29 NPGS accessions evaluated and reported in the table, all lines of cultivated beet (sugar beet, fodder beet, and table beet) showed moderate to heavy damages caused by SBRM with average ratings ranged from 4.2 to 7.1. Of the eight sea beet accessions, lines PI 518344 and PI 518408 were both resistant and showed a mean damage rate of 2.1 and 2.6, respectively, and the remained six sea beet lines were all susceptible with the rating scores ranged from 5.2 to 7.1, which suggested the two sea beet accessions may harbor valuable sources of resistance to SBRM. The two sea beet lines will be evaluated again to confirm SBRM resistance and will be used to develop new SBRM-resistant sugar beet lines in the USDA-ARS SBRM pre-breeding program.1 The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. C.C.: Project administration; investigation; methodology; data curation; formal analysis; writing—original draft; funding acquisition. B.C.H.: Data curation; resources; writing—review & editing. K.M.D.: Data curation; formal analysis; writing—review & editing; funding acquisition.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».