Development of<i>Erysiphe pulchra</i>, the causal agent of powdery mildew, on leaf disks of susceptible and resistant flowering dogwood (<i>Cornus florida</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the relative contribution of the different resistance components is necessary to develop selection schemes and accelerate resistant-cultivar development. This study was conducted to investigate spore germination, infection-structure formation, and fungal development of Erysiphe pulchra, the causal agent of powdery mildew, on leaf disks of six cultivars or lines of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) with different levels of resistance. The cultivars and lines tested were grouped into the following three resistance categories: highly susceptible (‘Cherokee Daybreak’ and MW 94-60), moderately susceptible (‘Cherokee Princess’ and MW 95-25), and resistant (‘Cherokee Brave’ and ‘Karen’s Appalachian Blush’). Percentages of spore germination and secondary-appressoria formation were not significantly different among the cultivars and lines. Significantly less percent germinated conidia with branched hyphae were observed on resistant cultivars than on the moderately susceptible cultivar or line, which was less than on the highly susceptible cultivar or line. Infection efficiencies were significantly different among cultivars and lines in the three resistance categories, except that there were no differences between ‘Cherokee Princess’ and the resistant cultivars. Resistant cultivars supported shorter latent periods than moderately and highly susceptible cultivars or lines, but no differences in latent period were detected between the later two resistance categories. The recently released ‘Karen’s Appalachian Blush’ expressed higher levels of resistance to powdery mildew than did ‘Cherokee Brave’, as indicated by the longer latent period and reduced relative sporulation of the pathogen.
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 | 0.000 | 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".