MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988213732 · doi:10.1139/x02-118

Genetic resistance of <i>Eucalyptus globulus</i> to autumn gum moth defoliation and the role of cuticular waxes

2002· article· en· W1988213732 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
TH Jones, BM Potts, René E. Vaillancourt, Noel W. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEucalyptus globulusWaxBiologyHeritabilityBotanyResistance (ecology)HorticultureGenetic variationEucalyptusAgronomyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the association between resistance of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. to autumn gum moth (Mnesempala privata Guenée) defoliation and cuticular wax compounds. In a field trial consisting of clonally replicated F 2 families of E. globulus, situated in Tasmania, Australia, significant genetic variation in resistance was detected in two of three F 2 families. The broad-sense heritability for defoliation within families ranged from 0.24 to 0.33. The 15 most resistant and the 15 most susceptible genotypes within each variable family were compared for their relative levels of 26 cuticular wax compounds. While no significant correlation between resistance and total wax yield estimates was found, significant differences were detected between resistant and susceptible classes in the relative quantities of several aliphatic phenylethyl and benzyl wax esters within both families. This association does not appear to be a response induced by defoliation. The broad-sense heritabilities of the variation in these compounds were high (0.82–0.94). Our findings suggest that these wax compounds are a mechanism of genetic resistance to autumn gum moth in E. globulus.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations58
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207