MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154491443 · doi:10.4039/tce.2014.75

Seed damage by <i>Sitodiplosis mosellana</i> (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) to spring wheat cultivars with the <i>Sm1</i> gene

2015· article· en· W2154491443 on OpenAlexaff
I.L. Wise, S. L. Fox, M.A.H. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarBiologyCecidomyiidaeMidgeAnthesisAgronomyInstarHorticultureBotanyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Six resistant spring wheat cultivars with the Sm1 gene were assessed for seed damage by the orange wheat blossom midge ( Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)) in laboratory and field tests. All resistant cultivars deterred larvae from developing on the seed and had significantly less yield losses than susceptible wheat cultivars. Vesper was the first cultivar with Sm1 that also deterred oviposition by the wheat midge. Seed damage to all resistant cultivars decreased the later plants were exposed to adult midge from the time spikes emerged from the boot until anthesis. Spikes of susceptible wheat cultivars had lower yield losses when exposed two or more days after emergence than spikes exposed at the time of emergence. Seed damage to resistant wheat caused dorsal and lateral distortions of the seed and often altered seed colour and shape. The pedigree of the resistant cultivars had no effect on the extent of seed damage. Shaw wheat had the least amount of seed damage and no third instars on the seed in both field and laboratory tests. All other cultivars had a few small third instars and similar levels of seed damage in laboratory tests, with Fieldstar being the least effective. In at least one mean site-year Shaw had significantly less yield losses than the other resistant cultivars. It is recommended that Shaw be used as the standard for the selection of future spring wheat cultivars with Sm1 .

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 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 score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207