MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097638804 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n11p206

Sources of Resistance to the Maize Weevil Sitophilus Zeamais in Tropical Maize

2012· article· en· W2097638804 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. K. Mwololo, Stephen Mugo, P. Okori, Tadele Tefera, M. Otim, S. W. Munyiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSyngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture
KeywordsSitophilusMaize weevilBiologyCurculionidaeWeevilHybridResistance (ecology)AgronomyPostharvestPlant breedingGenotypeHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is among the major storage pests that enhance food insecurity among maize farmers. New sources of resistance to the maize weevil are critical in a successful breeding program to address grain damage by postharvest pests. The objective of the study was to evaluate resistance in maize genotypes to the maize weevil, and consequently their value for use in breeding programs. A total of 175 genotypes, including hybrids, landraces, open-pollinated varieties and checks, were tested for resistance to the maize weevil. The percentage grain damage, weight loss, flour weight and weight of damaged and undamaged grains were measured. Significant differences (P <0.001) were observed among the genotypes for all the traits evaluated. The distribution of the genotypes among the different categories of resistance was an indication of the existence of genetic variation. The most resistant genotypes were CKPH08003 and BRAZ 2451 while the most susceptible were PH 3254 and BRAZ 4, among the hybrids and landraces respectively. Genotypes that were superior to the resistant checks were identified. The percentage weight loss and flour weight were identified as the most important insect-resistance traits for discriminating genotypes as evident from the canonical discriminant analysis. Correlation coefficients among the traits evaluated were highly significant. The resistant hybrids identified can be recommended for release and adoption by farmers, whereas the resistant landraces can act as sources of resistance for use in breeding programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207