Partial resistance to <i>Mycosphaerella pinodes</i> in field pea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The responses of 335 field pea lines originating from more than 30 countries to mycosphaerella blight caused by Mycosphaerella pinodes were evaluated in inoculated field plots in 1994 and 1995. Seven lines (Baccara, Carneval, Danto, Majoret, Miko, PI273605, and Yellowhead) with low area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) scores were identified. These seven lines, along with the resistant check, Radley, and the susceptible check, 89–195, were further examined for components of partial resistance to the disease in 1996 and 1998. Components evaluated were leaf area with symptoms (LAS), stem area with symptoms (SAS), pod area with symptoms (PAS), and percent seed infection (SI). Differences among pea lines were found in all components. Compared with the susceptible check, Carneval had significantly lower LAS, PAS, and SI in both years and was considered partially resistant to leaf, pod, and seed infection; Danto had significantly lower LAS, SAS, and PAS and was partially resistant to leaf, stem, and pod infection; Yellowhead had significantly lower SAS, PAS, and SI and was partially resistant to stem, pod, and seed infection; Majoret had significantly lower LAS and SAS and was partially resistant to leaf and stem infection; Miko had significantly lower SAS and PAS and was partially resistant to stem and pod infection; PI273605 had significantly lower PAS and SI and was partially resistant to pod and seed infection; and Baccara and Radley had significantly lower SAS and were partially resistant to stem infection only. Plots of Baccara and Yellowhead inoculated with M. pinodes-infected stubble had 10 and 17% reduction in yield, respectively, compared with non-inoculated and fungicide-treated plots and, thus, were considered tolerant to the disease. The remaining lines had yield reductions of 30 to 49%. Key words: Mycosphaerella blight, Mycosphaerella pinodes, Pisum sativum, field pea, partial resistance, disease tolerance
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".