Evaluation of components of resistance to powdery mildew in field pea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field trials were conducted to evaluate 12 field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars and lines (AC Melfort, AC Tamor, Highlight, Tara, 267-PS210713, 89-2910, JI100, JI1543, JI95, JI96, PI273605, PI311112) for resistance to disease progression and components of resistance to powdery mildew (Erysiphe pisi DC.), in comparison to the susceptible check cultivar Radley in 1998 and 1999. The disease progression was measured as area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) and the components of resistance were leaf area with symptoms (LAS), lesion diameter (LD), lesion numbers (LN), and sporulation (SP). All 12 lines had significantly lower AUDPC, LAS, LN, and SP than the susceptible check, but only five (AC Tamor, Tara, 267-PS210713, 89-2910, JI1543) showed a smaller LD. A greater range of variability was observed for AUDPC, LAS, and LN than for SP among the 12 lines, suggesting that AUDPC, LAS, and LN are more useful for measuring varietal resistance. Since AUDPC, LAS, and LN were highly correlated (P < 0.01), only one component would be required in screening pea lines for powdery mildew resistance. Key words: Powdery mildew, Erysiphe pisi, field pea, Pisum sativum, 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".