MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183979567 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.37.3.593

Screening of Strawberry Germplasm for Resistance to the Two-spotted Spider Mite

2002· article· en· W2183979567 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sedat Serçe, James F. Hancock

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermplasmSpider miteBiologyResistance (ecology)SpiderMiteHorticultureBotanyAgronomyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

River-10) were studied. ‘Honeoye’, DHL 1336, and Montreal River-10 are short-day (SD) genotypes, whereas the rest are day-neutral (DN). More information about the F. virginiana genotypes can be found in Hancock et al. (2001a). Runners from these genotypes were rooted into pots under natural long days in a greenhouse at Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, in late Aug. 2000. Then, in late Oct. 2000, plants were moved to three growth chambers at 18 °C and 6-, 8-, and 10-h day lengths with ≈600, 450, and 360 μmol·s·m photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), respectively. PAR was varied with day length so that the total energy received was equal in each chamber. Each treatment consisted of five plants of each genotype in a randomized complete-block design. The plants were held in the growth chambers for a total of 60 d; the infestation of TSM was noted ≈30 d after the plants were transferred to the growth chambers. When the experiment was terminated, genotypes were assigned a mite damage score (MDS) based on visual symptoms using a 0– 10 scale [0 = no visual symptoms, 10 = most mite damage (complete coverage of leaves with webbing)]. Three leaflets were randomly picked from each plant, and the number of mites (MNO) on their undersides was counted under a dissecting microscope. The surface area of these leaflets was measured and mite number per cm leaf area (MNA) was calculated. Analysis of variance tables were constructed for all variables and least significant difference (LSD) was calculated for main effects using the SAS program (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). Genotype was significant (P < 0.01) for all traits (Table 1). MDS was significantly correlated (P < 0.001) with both MNO (r = 0.40) and MNA (r = 0.35), and MNO and MNA were also positively correlated (r = 0.58). The means of MDS and MNA were progressively reduced at 6-, 8-, and 10-h photoperiod treatments (Table 2). Mean MNO did not follow this trend exactly as mite numbers under 8 and 10 h were about the same, but numbers at 6 h were still highest. When Patterson et al. (1994) compared resistance of ‘Redchief’ and ‘Tribute’ to TSM under, 8and 24-h day conditions, they also found the highest mite numbers under the shorter day treatment (8 h) on both cultivars. Overall, the F. virginiana genotypes, Frederick-9 and Montreal River-10, proved most resistant to mite infestation (Table 2). Montreal River-10 was consistently in the lowest significance group for MDS, MNA and MNO, regardless of day length. Frederick-9 was in the lowest significance group for all the treatments except MDS under 8-h day lengths. The least resistance was generally found in the F. ×ananassa cultivars Ft. Laramie and Honeoye. The TSM resistance that we have identified in F. virginiana may prove useful in strawberry breeding, as Montreal River-10 and Frederick-9 are considered among the most elite native genotypes and have already been incorporated into breeding populations (Hancock et al., 2001a, 2001b). Chaplin et al. (1968, 1970) and Barritt and Shanks (1981) have reported high heritability for TSM resistance, and a relatively high ratio of general to specific combining ability. We still need to test the durability of our resistance in the field; however, genotype resistance has often been shown to be stable across environments (Cary et al., 1995; Medina et al., 1999), and the laboratory rankings of resistance have in general agreed with field scores (Gimenez-Ferrer et al., 1993).

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 score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207