MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041528614 · doi:10.4141/p05-072

Soybean cyst nematode: Challenges and opportunities

2006· article· en· W2041528614 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shawn M. J. Winter, Istvan Rajcan, Barry J. Shelp

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoybean cyst nematodeBiologyGermplasmQuantitative trait locusAgronomyPopulationGlycine sojaCultivarGeneticsBiotechnologyGeneGlycine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soybean cyst nematode (SCN) is the primary pest responsible for yield losses of Glycine max. Management of SCN remains difficult in commercial soybean production due to the length of its biological cycle, frequent changes in population virulence, and ease of spread via infested soil. Effective management relies on crop rotation in combination with resistant cultivars, which have been derived from a limited germplasm base. Breeding for SCN resistance in soybean is difficult due to the quantitative nature of the trait, genetic variation within SCN populations, time required for phenotyping experimental soybean lines, and environmental factors affecting SCN reproduction. Quantitative trait loci associated with SCN resistance have been identified on 17 of the 20 soybean linkage groups, explaining 1–91% of the total phenotypic variation. Two major resistance genes, rhg 1 and Rhg 4, have been identified on linkage groups G and A2, respectively. Several minor resistance genes have been identified, but their importance varies with germplasm source and nematode race. Enhancement of SCN resistance in G. max may be achieved by interspecific hybridization with G. soja, the wild ancestor, or by engineering plants with candidate resistance genes such as Hs1 pro-1 . Key words: Genetic engineering, Glycine soja, soybean cyst nematode, molecular markers, resistance

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207