MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000704422 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.1250

Comparison of Different Sources of Vector Resistance for Controlling Wheat Streak Mosaic in Winter Wheat

2004· article· en· W2000704422 on OpenAlexaff
J. B. Thomas, R. L. Conner, R. J. Graf

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySecaleAgronomyCommon wheatCultivarPlant disease resistanceAvenaBackcrossing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheat streak mosaic (WSM) is a serious viral disease of wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) that is vectored by the wheat curl mite ( Aceria tosichella Keifer). Deployment of wheat cultivars with vector resistance is a possible method for WSM control. This 3‐yr (1996–1997/1998–1999) field study compared by means of a split‐plot design the effect of different sources of mite‐resistance backcrossed into a common winter wheat genetic background on both the spread of WSM and on the resulting yield losses. The various lines were first seeded early (in July) in blocks of spaced plots to provide different disease source or spreader treatments as main plots. The same winter wheat lines were then seeded in mid‐September into the spaces between the spreaders as subplot treatments to mimic the crop. Main‐plot (spreader) treatments included the mite‐susceptible winter wheat cultivars CDC Kestrel or Norstar, two mite‐resistant backcross lines of Norstar with resistance from Thinopyrum ponticum (Podpera) Liu & Wang (Nst*5/ Cmc 2) and Triticum tauschii (Coss.) Schmal. (Nst*5/ Cmc 1) plus oat ( Avena sativa L.) as a nonhost. The two mite‐resistant winter wheat lines, plus another mite‐resistant backcross line with resistance from rye ( Secale cereale L.) (Nst*5/1RS‐1BL) and Norstar were also used as subplot treatments. The presence of vector resistance in the spreader treatments reduced the intensity of disease symptoms in the spreader rows themselves and increased their grain yield. In 2 of 3 yr, these yield differences were dramatic. Resistance in the spreader also reduced the secondary spread of WSM into the adjacent winter wheat subplots with conventional planting dates. During severe outbreaks of WSM, (1996‐1997 and 1997‐1998), Nst*5/ Cmc 2 was more effective with a lower frequency of severely infected plants and smaller yield losses than Nst*5/ Cmc 1 or Nst*5/1RS‐1BL. In conclusion, control of WSM through vector resistance requires an effective resistance gene in both the spreader and the crop.

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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207