Comparison of Screening Methods for Resistance to <i>Fusarium</i> Root Rot in Common Beans (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Root rot, caused by Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli, is one of the main root diseases impacting production of common beans throughout the world. Because resistance of common beans to root rot is a quantitative trait that is strongly influenced by environmental factors, reproducible methods to screen bean plants for resistance to root rot are critical to the selection process. In this study, we adapted the inoculum layer method (ILM) developed for screening soybeans for resistance to Phytophthora rot and compared it with the traditional liquid inoculum method (LIM) for screening common beans for resistance to Fusarium root rot. In addition, two methods of evaluating resistance using the ILM were compared. The most significant Pearson correlation coefficient between trials involving 80 recombinant inbred lines was achieved with the ILM and counting discoloured vascular bundles in the lower stem (rp = 0.7113***) compared to rating the discoloration on root and hypocotyl (rp = 0.5555***). The traditional (LIM) screening method and rating the discolouration on roots resulted in a non‐significant correlation between trials (rp = 0.1084).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".