Registration of Two Sugarcane Germplasm Clones with Antibiosis to the Sugarcane Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Ho 08–9001’ (Reg. No. GP‐21, PI 659991) and ‘Ho 08–9003’ (Reg. No. GP‐22, PI 659992) sugarcane ( Saccharum spp.) germplasm were selected as clones for the combined traits of resistance to the sugarcane borer [ Diatraea saccharalis (F.)], vigorous growth habit, sucrose content, and biomass yield from the cross Ho 02–95 × MPTH 97–003. Ho 08–9001 had 13% bored internodes (10% bored internodes is the accepted economic injury level for sugarcane borer in Louisiana) but had comparatively low values for adult emergence and larval weight. Ho 08–9003 had bored internodes equal to the accepted economic injury level and also had low values for adult emergence and larval weights. The low adult‐emergence values and low larval weights suggest antibiosis as the mechanism of resistance to the sugarcane borer; antibiosis is a resistance mechanism not yet exploited for stem borer resistance in Louisiana. When averaged across the plant‐cane and first‐ratoon crop, Ho 08–9001 had 21% more cane yield (117 vs. 89 Mg ha −1 ) and 53% less sucrose content (54 vs. 115 kg Mg −1 ) than HoCP 96–540. While Ho 08–9003 had 34% more cane yield (119 vs. 89 Mg ha −1 ) than the cultivar ‘HoCP 96–540’, but 37% less sucrose content (67 vs. 115 Mg ha −1 ). The combination of resistance, high early‐generation (F 1 ) sucrose, and high cane yield makes these two clones attractive to sugarcane breeders to develop insect‐resistant sugarcane cultivars.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".