Resistance of Rice Varieties to the Stored-Product Insect,<i>Sitophilus zeamais</i>(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four common Portuguese rice varieties--Thaibonnet, Gladio, Albatros, and Eurosis--were tested for their relative susceptibility to Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky, a common pest of stored rice in Portugal and in tropical countries. Physical (moisture content, hardness, length, and width) and chemical (by attenuated total reflection-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy) properties of rice kernels were measured. Insect bioassays measured median developmental time, Dobie's index of susceptibility, percentage of damaged grains and weight loss, and progeny developed. This was done for paddy, brown rice, and polished rice for each variety. There were small, but significant, differences in insect resistance among the varieties. However, it was different for paddy and polished rice. In paddy, these differences were correlated with hull damage, and Eurosis was the most susceptible variety. In polished rice, resistance was correlated with hardness, and Thaibonnet was the most susceptible variety. In general, paddy rice was more resistant to insect attack, followed by polished rice and then brown rice. Paddy kernels selected with undamaged hull were completely resistant to attack. Implications for IPM and breeding for resistant varieties are discussed.
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".