Yield and insect injury in leafhopper (<i>Empoasca fabae</i> Harris and <i>Empoasca kraemeri</i> Ross & Moore) infested dry beans in Ontario and Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recombinant inbred lines derived from a cross between a leafhopper-susceptible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Berna Dutch brown and leafhopper-resistant selection EMP 419 were examined for resistance to the leafhopper species Empoasca abae (Harris) and Empoasca kraemeri Ross and Moore in Ontario, Canada and Colombia, South America, respectively. In both Ontario and Colombia there were significant positive correlations of visual injury scores with percent reductions in seed count, seed yield and seed weights. Leafhopper injury symptoms were significantly correlated with degree of stunting in Ontario, while only leaf burn scores were correlated with stunting in Colombia. Nymph counts were significantly and positively correlated with leaf curl scores in Ontario but not in Colombia, despite significant rank correlations of leaf burn scores and leaf curl scores between these locations. In a second experiment comparing the effects of E. fabae nymph infestations on set of 23 resistant and 5 susceptible recombinant inbred lines (RILs), the latter lines were infested by significantly fewer nymphs. Possible resistance mechanisms to E. fabae and E. kraemeri are discussed. Key words: Potato leafhopper, resistance insect, antixenosis, bean (navy), 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 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".