Alfalfa resistance to post-harvest <i>Aspergillus</i> species: Combining ability analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hay making is still the most widespread technique of forage preservation. Saprophytic fungi, such as Aspergillus repens, can reduce forage quality during the post-harvest period by causing hay molding. Methods to control molding have yielded variable results, but genetic resistance has yet to be exploited. The objective of this study was to determine the mode of inheritance of resistance to post-harvest fungal growth in alfalfa. Seven parental genotypes representing a range of resistance to fungal growth (A. repens) were crossed in a complete diallel including reciprocals for a total of 42 crosses. Parental genotypes along with their progeny were screened for resistance to A. repens. The relative importance of general combining ability (GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA) effects in controlling resistance to post-harvest A. repens was compared. The results revealed a preponderance of GCA effects. The parent that supported the least amount of fungal growth produced progeny with the least amount of fungal coverage. The reverse was true for the more susceptible parents. The results indicate that breeding procedures that maximize additive gene effects, such as recurrent selection, could be effective in improving resistance to post-harvest fungal growth in alfalfa. Key words: Alfalfa, breeding, combining ability, resistance, Aspergillis repens, post-harvest fungi
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".