MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394143662

Lucerne common leaf spot: forage quality, photosynthesis rate and field resistance

2001· article· en· W2394143662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nan Zhi

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Pratacultural Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhotosynthesisLeaf spotMedicago sativaAgronomyPopulationGrasslandBotanyHorticulture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of lucerne ( Medicago sativa ) common leaf spot caused by Pseudopeziza medicaginis on contents of the major nutrient components and leaf photosynthesis rate were studied. Disease resistance of 85 lucerne varieties (populations), 5 Medicago varia varieties (populations) and 4 M. falcata varieties (populations) was evaluated under alpine grassland conditions. Compared to the healthy leaves the crude protein content in the diseased leaves were reduced by 25%. A significant negative correlation between the crude protein content and the disease severity was found ( r =0.965, P 0.01). Leaf photosynthesis rate decreased as the disease severity increased. The photosynthesis rate was reduced by 48% when 13% of the leaf area was infected by the pathogen, whereas 84.1% of reduction was found when 85% of the leaf area was infected. Among 94 varieties (populations) evaluated for disease resistance only one of Rambler populations was immune. Ten lucerne varieties (populations) and another Rambler population were found highly resistant to common leaf spot, which included Baron and Apex from Canada, Wiscosin from the USA, and Xingping, Wugong, Zhaodong from China. The remaining 83 varieties (populations) were susceptible to the disease, which included 78 15 from the USA, Atlantic from Canada, Hetian and Xianyang from China, and M. falcata from Inner Mongolia, China.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Pratacultural ScienceSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207