Resistance of Geneva and Other Apple Rootstocks to<i>Erwinia amylovora</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When vigorously growing shoots of 49 different apple rootstocks grown in a greenhouse were inoculated with different strains of Erwinia amylovora, Budagovsky 9 (B.9), Ottawa 3, Malling 9, and Malling 26 were the most fire blight susceptible rootstocks and Geneva 11, Geneva 65, Geneva 16, Geneva 30, Pillnitzer Au51-11, Malling 7, and several breeding selections were the most resistant. Significant strain-rootstock interactions were observed in the amount of fire blight that resulted from inoculation. Field-grown fruiting 'Royal Gala' trees on Geneva 16 and Geneva 30 rootstocks were highly resistant to rootstock infection (no tree mortality) when trees sustained severe blossom infection with E. amylovora, compared with Malling 9 and Malling 26 rootstock clones, which were highly susceptible to infection (36 to 100% tree mortality). In contrast to potted own-rooted B.9 plants inoculated in a greenhouse, B.9 rootstocks of orchard trees appeared resistant to rootstock infection (0% tree mortality). Orchard trees on Geneva 11 were moderately resistant to rootstock infection (25% tree mortality). There was general agreement in the evaluation of resistance under orchard conditions when rootstock resistance was evaluated in relation to controlled blossom inoculation or to natural blossom infection.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".