Assessment of resistance components of bigleaf hydrangeas (<i>Hydrangea macrophylla</i>) to<i>Erysiphe polygoni</i>in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe polygoni is one of the major foliar diseases on bigleaf hydrangeas (Hydrangea macrophylla). To determine resistance components of bigleaf hydrangea to powdery mildew, fungal development and host necrotic cells were compared on six bigleaf hydrangea cultivars using a detached leaf disk bioassay. Germination percentages of conidia were not significantly different among cultivars. However, percent geminated conidia with secondary germ tubes (GCSGT), percent necrotic host cells, infection efficiency, latent period, and sporulation were significantly different among cultivars. In general, ‘Veitchii’ was resistant, ‘Nikko Blue’ was susceptible, and ‘Madame Emile Mouillere’, ‘Forever Pink’, ‘Lilacina’, and ‘Holstein’ were intermediate. Necrotic cells were macroscopically visible in all cultivars regardless of assigned resistance levels. Significantly more necrotic cells were detected in resistant cultivar ‘Veitchii’ compared with other cultivars. These results suggest that hypersensitive reaction is not a qualitative trait of resistance, but the frequency of necrotic cells could be one of several resistance components that contribute to restrain fungal growth and colony development. Additionally, percent GCSGT, infection efficiency, latent period, and sporulation could be used to evaluate partial resistance in bigleaf hydrangea to powdery mildew using a detached leaf disk assay.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".