Resistance of Vitis Germplasm to Elsinoë ampelina (de Bary) Shear Evaluated by Lesion Number and Diameter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the resistance of 133 grapevine cultivars or selections, including Vitis vinifera and American hybrids, on the basis of lesion number and length to identify sources of resistance to grapevine anthracnose. All germplasms tested in this study showed anthracnose symptoms to some extent, and the distribution of lesion number and diameter was continuous. Most table grape V. vinifera cultivars were highly susceptible, showing many large lesions. However, V. vinifera wine grapes were more resistant with smaller lesions. Some American hybrid grapes such as ‘Ontario’ showed very few and small lesions. There was a significant positive correlation between lesion number and size in American ( r = 0.63, P = 0.0041) and Japanese hybrids ( r = 0.56, P < 0.001), whereas there was no correlation between these characters in V. vinifera . Japanese tetraploid cultivars were neither highly susceptible nor resistant. High anthracnose susceptibility of most well-known table grape V. vinifera cultivars, including ‘Muscat of Alexandria’, ‘Italia’, ‘Rizamat’, ‘Kattakurgan’, and ‘Thompson Seedless’, indicates that resistance should be introgressed from other cultivars such as American hybrids or wine grapes when these susceptible table grapes or their descendants are used in breeding anthracnose-resistant table grapes.
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".