Relative resistance of newly released apple rootstocks to <i>Phytophthora cactorum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New rootstocks from series SJM (St-Jean-Morden) and SJP84 (ST-Jean-1984) have been evaluated for agronomic qualities since 1970 and 1975, respectively. As a result of the evaluation, seven and nine rootstocks from the SJM and SJP84 series, respectively, were selected. However, these were not evaluated for crown rot resistance. Excised shoot assay was used to evaluate resistance of 22 apple rootstocks to crown rot caused by Phytophthora cactorum (Leb. and Cohn.) Schroet. The pathogenicity of four isolates of P. cactorum to apple rootstocks was confirmed using the same excised twig assay. For both tests, relative lesion length was used as a measure of susceptibility. The analysis of variance showed that there was a significant effect of rootstocks, isolate and the interaction between rootstock and isolate. In general, apple rootstocks were more susceptible to isolate PC04-02 followed by isolates PC04-03 and PC04-01 and less susceptible to isolate PC04-04. The selection SJM189 was the least susceptible to P. cactorum and SJP84-5162 and SJM15 were the most susceptible suggesting that these rootstocks may not be suitable in orchards with favourable conditions to P. cactorum infection. Excised twigs of the SJP84-5180, SJP84-5189, SJP845174, O.3, SJP84-5230, O.3A, SJP84-5198, SJM167 and M.44 showed low to moderate susceptibility, whereas, rootstocks SJP845231, SJM150 and M.26 showed moderate susceptibility to P. cactorum. Rootstocks SJM188, SJP84-5217, MM.111, SJM127, SJP84-5218 and MM.106 showed high susceptibility to P. cactorum. The present results confirmed that none of the released or commercial rootstocks are completely resistant to P. cactorum and an integrated approach including resistance, chemical control and cultural practices is recommended to manage P. cactorum in apple orchards. Key words: Apple breeding, crown rot, Malus domestica Borkh., root rot
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".