Effect of<i>Raspberry bushy dwarf virus, Raspberry leaf mottle virus</i>, and<i>Raspberry latent virus</i>on Plant Growth and Fruit Crumbliness in ‘Meeker’ Red Raspberry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raspberry crumbly fruit in red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), widespread in the Pacific Northwest of the United States and British Columbia, Canada, is most commonly caused by a virus infection. Raspberry bushy dwarf virus (RBDV) has long been attributed as the causal agent of the disease. Recently, the identification of two additional viruses, Raspberry leaf mottle virus (RLMV) and Raspberry latent virus (RpLV), in northern Washington and British Columbia, suggested the existence of a possible new virus complex responsible for the increased severity of the disease. Virus testing of crumbly fruited plants from five fields in northern Washington revealed the presence of RLMV and RpLV, in addition to RBDV. Plants with less severe crumbly fruit symptoms had a much lower incidence of RLMV or RpLV. Field trials using replicated plots of 'Meeker' plants containing single and mixed infections of RBDV, RLMV, or RpLV, along with a virus-free control, were developed to determine the role of RLMV and RpLV in crumbly fruit. Field evaluations during establishment and two fruiting years revealed that plants infected with the three viruses or the combinations RBDV+RLMV and RBDV+RpLV had the greatest reduction in cane growth, or fruit firmness and fruit weight, respectively. Quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) showed that the titer of RBDV was increased ~400-fold when it occurred in mixed infections with RLMV compared to RBDV in single infections. In addition, a virus survey revealed that RLMV and RpLV are present at high incidence in northern Washington; whereas the incidence in southern Washington and Oregon, where crumbly fruit is not as serious a problem, was considerably lower.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".