MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972717640 · doi:10.1111/pbr.12168

Introgression of phenoxy herbicide resistance from <i>Raphanus raphanistrum</i> into <i>Raphanus sativus</i>

2014· article· en· W1972717640 on OpenAlexaff
Mithila Jugulam, Michael Walsh, John C. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaphanusIntrogressionMCPABiologyBackcrossingBrassicaceaeHybridWeedAgronomyTrifluralinBotanyWeed controlGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4‐dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4‐ D ) and 4‐chloro‐2‐methylphenoxy acetic acid ( MCPA ) are selective herbicides used extensively in agriculture for weed control. Wild radish ( R aphanus raphanistrum) is a problem weed across the globe and heavily infests crop fields in Australia. Phenoxy herbicides are used to selectively control dicot weeds, including wild radish. As a result of selection, phenoxy‐resistant wild radish populations evolved in Western Australia. In this research, introgression of phenoxy resistance from wild radish to cultivated radish ( R aphanus sativus ) was investigated following classical breeding procedures. F 1 progeny were generated by crossing MCPA ‐resistant R . raphanistrum and MCPA ‐susceptible R . sativus . F 1 hybrids were screened for MCPA resistance. The MCPA ‐resistant F 1 hybrids were used to produce three generations of backcross progeny. Genetic analyses of F 1 and backcross progeny demonstrated introgression of the MCPA ‐resistant trait from wild radish to cultivated radish. Implications of phenoxy resistance introgression into cultivated radish include potential development of herbicide‐tolerant radish cultivars or other members of the Brassicaceae family.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207