MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070132843 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2006.02.0089

Genetic Resistance to <i>Mycosphaerella pinodes</i> in 558 Field Pea Accessions

2006· article· en· W2070132843 on OpenAlexafffund
Roger Zhang, Sheau‐Fang Hwang, K. F. Chang, B. D. Gossen, Stephen E. Strelkov, G. D. Turnbull, S. F. Blade

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAgriculture Food and Rural Development
FundersAlberta Agricultural Research InstituteAlberta Crop Industry Development Fund
KeywordsMycosphaerellaBiologyField peaHeritabilitySativumGermplasmResistance (ecology)PisumBlightBotanyPlant disease resistanceHorticultureGenotypeAgronomyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comprehensive assessments of germplasm collections of field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) have failed to identify any accessions that are highly resistant to Mycosphaerella blight, caused by Mycosphaerella pinodes In the present study, the broad‐sense heritability of resistance to M. pinodes was studied on 558 pea genotypes in a detached‐leaf assay and in field trials over 2 yr. In addition, analysis of covariance in disease reaction between the two assessment methods was examined. Only a few genotypes displayed relatively high levels of resistance, and as expected, no complete resistance was observed. The pattern of differences in reaction to M. pinodes among the genotypes demonstrates that resistance is quantitative and moderately heritable. Broad‐sense heritability was higher in the detached‐leaf assays than in the field trials, likely because of more environmental variance in the field. Covariance between repetitions of the detached leaf assays was not significant but was significant between the field tests. This indicates that detached‐leaf assessments are more reliable for assessment of large numbers of accessions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207