Wild <I>Solanum</I> Resistance to Aphids: Antixenosis or Antibiosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The type (antixenosis or antibiosis) of resistance against the aphids Myzus persicae (Sulzer) and Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) was characterized for the wild tuber-bearing potatoes, Solanum chomatophilum Bitter and Solanum stoloniferum Schltdl. & Bouché through behavioral (olfactometry and electrical penetration graph) and physiological studies. In dual-choice assays, only S. stoloniferum exerted attraction to M. euphorbiae. This ruled out the possibility that plant volatiles of S. chomatophilum and S. stoloniferum may contribute to the high resistance expressed. In electrical penetration graph experiments, aphids feeding on S. stoloniferum showed increased salivation phases, whereas phloem ingestion was drastically reduced for both aphid species. Because reaching phloem elements was not delayed in both species, the resistance mechanism was phloem-located. The antixenosis exhibited by S. stoloniferum was similar on young and mature leaves. S. chomatophilum also showed phloem-located antixenosis against M. persicae. In contrast, M. euphorbiae had no difficulty to reach S. chomatophilum phloem tissues and to ingest sap. S. chomatophilum resistance against M. euphorbiae was antibiosis and only expressed in mature leaves, where a complete nymphal mortality was observed.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".