Resistance of <i>Pinus taeda</i> families under artificial inoculations with diverse fusiform rust pathogen populations and comparison with field trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlled inoculations with 10 bulk inocula of Cronartium quercuum (Berk) Miyabe ex Shirai f.sp. fusiforme were carried out on open-pollinated progeny of 25 fast-growing Pinus taeda L. parents. The parents had a range of breeding values for resistance to fusiform rust in progeny field trials. There were highly significant differences among the half-sib families in response to inoculations, and these differences were very reproducible; the half-sib family-mean heritability of resistance to controlled inoculation was 0.97. All of the families that were susceptible in the field were susceptible in controlled inoculations, and most (12 of 17) of the field-resistant families were resistant in response to controlled inoculations. Significant pathogenic variability was observed among the different bulk inocula, although this accounted for only 1.9% of the total variation. Genetic differences among families within field-resistant or field-susceptible groups accounted for 13.7% of the total variation. The family by inocula interaction was highly significant, but a single field-resistant family contributed 44% of the total family by inocula interaction variance, and two other field-resistant families also showed significant interactions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".