Identification and evaluation of flea beetle (<i>Phyllotreta cruciferae</i>) resistance within Brassicaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All currently registered varieties of canola/oilseed rape, Brassica napus and B. rapa, are susceptible to attack by flea beetles, although to varying degrees. The development of resistant cultivars would be an environmentally acceptable means to reduce the damage caused by flea beetles. Seedlings from 10 species of Brassicaceae were evaluated for levels of antixenosis resistance to flea beetles in the laboratory, along with 308 Sinapis alba/B. napus hybrids. Thlaspi arvense and 11 cultivars of S. alba were resistant to feeding by flea beetles. In addition, 34 S. alba/B. napus hybrids were resistant to feeding by flea beetle in at least one test, although many of these failed to demonstrate resistance with repeated testing. One hybrid line was resistant to feeding by flea beetles each of the four times it was tested, while another was resistant in three out of four tests. These data indicate that resistance to flea beetles within the Brassicaceae is a genetic trait and can be transferred by interspecific hybridization. This information is the first step towards introgression of genetic sources of flea beetle resistance from resistant relatives into canola varieties. Key words: Flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae, Brassica, resistance, antixenosis, introgression
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".