Determination of traits associated with leafhopper (Empoasca fabae and Empoasca kraemeri) resistance and dissection of leafhopper damage symptoms in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The typical presentation of potato leafhopper injury in beans includes necrosis at the leaf margins (leaf burn or hopperburn), and downward curling or “cupping” of the leaves. To evaluate potato leafhopper damage a visual score that combines the overall severity of leaf burn, leaf curling and stunting symptoms is usually used. Nonetheless, it may be useful to evaluate these symptoms separately since they may be the result of separate mechanisms of damage, controlled by separate genes. A population of 108 recombinant inbred lines (RILs), derived from a cross between a leafhopper‐susceptible Ontario cultivar (Berna) and a resistant line (EMP 419) were scored for injury after natural infestation with Empoasca fabae in Canada and Empoasca kraemeri in Colombia. Leaf burn and leaf curl were significantly rank‐correlated (0.37–0.74, P <0.001) in all environments. However, several RILs consistently exhibited high scores for leaf curl but low values for leaf burn, which suggests that genetic dissection of these characters may be possible. Indeterminate growth habit was associated with slightly lower damage scores in Colombia and Ontario, Canada ( P <0.05) while white‐seeded lines had lower damage scores in Colombia ( P <0.05). The resistant parental line had significantly lower nymph counts than did the susceptible parent. A positive relationship between damage scores and nymph counts was also observed in the F 3 families and the F 5:6 RILs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it