Antixenosis and antibiosis resistance to<i>Ceutorhynchus obstrictus</i>in novel germplasm derived from<i>Sinapis alba</i>x<i>Brassica napus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introgression of cabbage seedpod weevil,Ceutorhynchus obstrictus(Marsham) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), resistance fromSinapis albaL. to susceptibleBrassica napusL. (Brassicaceae) has produced genetic lines resistant to the weevil in replicated field trials. In the current study, weevil feeding and oviposition onS. albaand on resistant novel lines developed by crossingS. alba×B. napuswere less frequent than on susceptible germplasm.Development times were greater and biomass was less when larvae were reared on resistant lines orS. alba. Oocyte development was faster in post-diapause springtime adult female weevils caged on susceptible plants than in those on a resistant line,S. alba, or an early-season food host,Thlaspi arvenseL (Brassicaceae). Our results suggest that antixenosis resistance and antibiosis resistance are expressed by resistant lines. These results and previous chemical analyses of these lines also suggest that resistance is potentially influenced by attractive and (or) feeding-stimulant effects of 2-phenylethyl glucosinolate and antifeedant or toxic effects of 1-methoxy-3-indolylmethyl glucosinolate.
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".