Inheritance of resistance to wheat midge, <i>Sitodiplosis mosellana</i>, in spring wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inheritance of resistance to a wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin), was investigated in spring wheats derived from nine resistant winter wheat cultivars. F 1 hybrids were obtained from crosses between resistant winter wheats and susceptible spring wheats, and used to generate doubled haploid populations. These populations segregated in a ratio of 1:1 resistant to susceptible, indicating that a single gene confers the resistance. The F 2 progeny from an intercross among spring wheats derived from the nine resistance sources did not segregate for resistance. Therefore, the same gene confers resistance in all nine sources of resistance, although other genes probably affect expression because the level of resistance varied among lines. Heterozygous plants from five crosses between diverse susceptible and resistant spring wheat parents all showed intermediate levels of response, indicating that resistance is partly dominant. Susceptible plants were reliably discriminated from heterozygous or homozygous resistant ones in laboratory tests, based on the survival and development of wheat midge larvae on one or two spikes. This powerful resistance gene, designated Sm1 , is simply inherited and can be incorporated readily into breeding programmes for spring or winter wheat. However, the use of this gene by itself may lead to the evolution of a virulent population, once a resistant cultivar is widely grown.
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".