Review: Breeding common bean for resistance to insect pests and nematodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Singh, S. P. and Schwartz, H. F. 2011. Review: Breeding common bean for resistance to insect pests and nematodes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 239–250. Various insect pests and nematodes cause severe losses (35–100%) globally to the yield and quality of dry and green common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). The objectives of this review are to briefly describe major insect pests and nematodes in the Americas, breeding strategies and methods used, and research progress achieved. We also describe integrated genetic improvement for resistance to multiple insect pests and nematodes and cultivar development. Breeding for resistance to one insect pest or nematode at a time has been practiced in most instances. Backcross, pedigree, and bulk-pedigree breeding methods have been used. Considerable progress has been made in genetics and germplasm enhancement for resistance to bean pod weevil (Apion godmani Wagner), tropical bruchid (Zabrotes subfasciatus Boheman), leafhoppers (Empoasca kraemeri Ross and Moore), and root- knot nematode (Meloidogyne species). However, improvement in resistance to Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say), lesion (Pratylenchus species) and soybean cyst (Heterodera glycines) nematodes, and other regional insect pests has been minimal or non-existent. Furthermore, dry or green common bean cultivars with high levels of resistance to one or more insect pests and nematodes are rare. Breeding strategies for integrated and simultaneous genetic improvement of multiple qualitatively and quantitatively inherited resistances for cultivar development are briefly described.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".