MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recurrent selection for physiological resistance to white mould in dry bean

2009· article· en· W2141545606 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSclerotinia sclerotiorumBiologyPhaseolusInoculationPopulationRandomized block designHorticulturePlant disease resistanceDry beanWhite (mutation)BotanyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With 1 figure and 5 tables Abstract White mould (WM) [caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary] is a widespread disease of dry and green bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in North America and elsewhere. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of recurrent selection (RS) for pyramiding WM resistance from Andean, Middle American and inter‐specific breeding lines. Two double‐cross populations, Pop I = USPT‐WM‐1/CORNELL 601//USPT‐CBB‐1/92BG‐7 and Pop II = ‘Chase’/I 9365–25//ABL 15/A 195 were developed. Each double‐cross comprised 848 F 1 plants for RS cycle one (C 1 ). Twenty six WM‐resistant plants from each double‐cross were used to produce RS cycle two (C 2 ). To measure the gain for WM resistance, 13 selected S 2 families from each of C 1 and C 2 of each population and their four parents (C 0 ) were tested in a randomized complete block design with three replicates in two greenhouse environments in 2008. Two separate inoculations on each plant one week apart using a cut‐stem method were made. The WM reaction was scored at 16, 23 and 33 days post inoculation (DPI) using a 1 (no disease symptoms) to 9 (severely diseased or dead plants) scale. The effects of environment were significant (P = 0.05), but replicate and population effects were not significant (P > 0.05). The RS was effective in changing the mean WM score of selected families from C 0 to C 1 and C 2 , but the gain between C 1 and C 2 was not significant in Pop I. The gain in WM resistance for Pop I was 12%. Selection gain in Pop II was 5%, but no significant differences in mean WM scores of C 0 , C 1 and C 2 were found. However, selected S 2 families had WM scores similar to those of the best parent and selected families from Pop I. Thus, one cycle of RS applied to double‐cross populations was adequate for improving WM resistance in common bean.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it