Resistance to cabbage seedpod weevil among selected Brassicaceae germplasm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brassicaceae germplasm (Brassica napusL.,Brassica rapaL.,Brassica juncea(L.) Czern.,Brassica carinataA. Braun,Sinapis albaL.,Camelina sativa(L.) Crantz,Crambespecies) with cultivar development potential for the prairies was evaluated for resistance to cabbage seedpod weevil (Ceutorhynchus obstrictus(Marsham) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)) infestation under field conditions in southern Alberta from 2001 to 2005. Relative susceptibilities were as follows:B. rapaandB. napus>B. juncea=B. carinata>S. alba. Although some of the germplasm evaluated varied within species in terms of glucosinolate profile, erucic acid level, oil content, and plant height, none of these factors appeared to influence the degree ofC. obstrictusdamage. A subset of this germplasm was also evaluated in the greenhouse. Although the canola speciesB. rapasustained the highest level of damage in the field tests, it was similar to otherBrassicagenotypes in the greenhouse. All lines ofS. albawere virtually immune to weevil attack in both field and greenhouse tests, regardless of glucosinolate profile, suggesting that other factors confer resistance in this species. Synchrony of crop development with weevil activity in the field explains some of the variability in damage observed among genotypes and illustrates the importance of combining field and greenhouse studies when assessing 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".