Relative performance of resistant wheat varietal blends and susceptible wheat cultivars exposed to wheat midge, <i>Sitodiplosis mosellana</i> (Géhin)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vera, C. L., Fox, S. L., DePauw, R. M., Smith, M. A. H., Wise, I. L., Clarke, F. R., Procunier, J. D. and Lukow, O. M. 2013. Relative performance of resistant wheat varietal blends and susceptible wheat cultivars exposed to wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin). Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 59–66. Wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin), causes significant yield losses to spring wheat in western Canada. To mitigate these losses, midge-resistant wheat varietal blends, consisting of cultivars with the Sm1 midge resistance gene and containing 10% of a midge susceptible cultivar (interspersed refuge), were made available to farmers. To test their performance relative to conventional midge-susceptible cultivars, four varietal blends were grown during four consecutive growing seasons at eight locations in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canada, and compared with four conventional midge-susceptible cultivars. Midge damage varied from year to year during the 4-yr study. In general, the varietal blends, as a group, yielded more grain than the susceptible cultivars, especially when grown in environments with high (12.8%) seed damage. In environments with low (0.9%) seed damage, the varietal blend yield increases were smaller but still significant, suggesting that some of the varietal blends may be endowed with additional superior attributes, unrelated to midge resistance. The Sm1 gene was independent of time to heading and maturity, plant height, lodging and seed weight.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".