Impact of powdery mildew on the yield of soft white spring wheat cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of powdery mildew (Blumeria graminis f. sp. tritici) on the grain yield and protein content of one susceptible, Springfield, and three moderately resistant cultivars, Fielder, AC Reed and AC Nanda, of soft white spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) was examined at two field locations near Lethbridge and Vauxhall, Alberta, in 1999 and 2000. At the start of heading, powdery mildew development was suppressed in half of the plots of each cultivar by a single spray application of the fungicide Tilt (propiconazole). Severe powdery mildew infection of the susceptible cultivar Springfield resulted in yield reductions ranging from 11.4 to 19.9%. The grain yield of the moderately resistant cultivar Fielder was significantly reduced at both sites in 1999 by 7.6–10.5% while AC Reed suffered a significant yield loss (7.6–9.1%) at Lethbridge in both years. The moderately resistant cultivar AC Nanda consistently had the lowest powdery mildew ratings and its yield was unaffected by the disease. A single fungicide application prevented disease buildup on the moderately resistant cultivars, but not on Springfield. The grain protein content of the moderately resistant cultivars was unaffected by powdery mildew, but it decreased in Springfield by 0.6–0.7%. Key words: Powdery mildew, Propiconazole, Blumeria graminis f. sp. tritici, wheat, Triticum aestivum, 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".