MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077854526 · doi:10.5539/jas.v2n3p84

Assessment of Selected Pea Genotypes Reaction to Ascochyta Blight under Field Conditions and the Impact of Disease Severity on Yield Components

2010· article· en· W2077854526 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. Boroş, Joanna Marcinkowska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAscochytaField peaBlightBiologySativumInoculationPhomaMycosphaerellaHorticultureAgronomyPisumGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response of pea (Pisum sativum) genotypes to ascochyta blight disease and the effect of disease severity on yield components were evaluated in a 4-year trial under field conditions. Peas were inoculated with Ascochyta pinodes, the anamorph of Mycosphaerella pinodes, or with Phoma pinodella separately and with a mixture of both species. Mean infection ratings of all inoculation treatments were significantly higher compared to controls, with the highest infection for inoculation with A. pinodes. Pea genotypes significantly differed for ascochyta blight severity. The differences in extent of infection of the least and the most infected genotypes were quite consistent throughout the study. Frequencies of A. pinodes and P. pinodella isolated from diseased leaf fragments of ten pea genotypes depended on growing season. Deleterious effects of the inoculation with Ascochyta, Phoma and Ascochyta+Phoma treatments on all evaluated agronomic parameters were observed. Greater lodging of plants in all fungi-inoculated treatments was noticed. Inoculated plants revealed decreased seed yield components as follows: number of pods and seed per plant was reduced from 12% to 19% and from 18,5 to 22%, respectively. Seed weight per plant decreased from 18% to 27,7% in comparison with controls. There were also quite large differences between pea genotypes in reduction of all yield components.

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 score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207