Characterization of resistance to ascochyta blight of selected wild <i>Cicer</i> germplasm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resistance of 24 perennial Cicer accessions to Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. was assessed under field and greenhouse conditions. Two perennial and two annual Cicer accessions with superior resistance were examined and compared with susceptible (‘CDC Xena’) and resistant (‘CDC Frontier’) domesticated Cicer arietinum L. (chickpea) cultivars in terms of pathogen colonization, symptom development, host autofluorescence, and hydrogen peroxide generation. Colonizing hyphae on the four wild Cicer genotypes were pigmented, but hyaline on cultivated chickpea. The morphology of colonizing hyphae differed on the six genotypes, with wider hyphae observed on the most resistant genotype, Cicer anatolicum Alef. PI 383626. Inoculation of leaves of the top five nodes indicated that infection rates were highest on the youngest unfurled leaf for C. anatolicum PI 383626, Cicer oxyodon Boiss. & Hoh. PI 561103, Cicer bijugum Rech.f. ILWC 260, and ‘CDC Frontier’. Observations of hyphal pigmentation, modified hyphal growth, and low infection rates on fully developed leaves of wild Cicer plants suggest that components of the plant surface play an important role in disease resistance. Localized autofluorescence in response to infection was observed in the two perennials, but not in the other genotypes examined. The distinct resistance strategy observed in these perennial accessions make them interesting but challenging candidates for introgression of resistance into cultivated chickpea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".