Evaluation of genus Rosa germplasm for resistance to black spot, downy mildew and powdery mildew.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black spot resistance in the field was visually evaluated for a total of 581 accessions at two locations in central and northern Germany. At Sangerhausen rose garden 289 of 486 accessions have shown a high level of disease resistance. After subsequent resistance tests in the detached leaf assay 33 of these accessions did not show any signs of black spot infections. At Ahrensburg 41 of the 130 wild rose accessions from 65 species were not infected in the field. Leaves of the accessions without apparent black spot infections were sampled and inoculated under laboratory conditions with different single spore isolates and field collected samples of the pathogen. A total of 11 accessions were found to be highly resistant to all black spot isolates. Powdery mildew resistance of 39 accessions at Ahrensburg was identified after field evaluation and artificial inoculation with different samples of Podosphaera pannosa from naturally infected leaves. Downy mildew resistance was estimated in detached leaf assays after inoculation of a subset of 85 accessions from Ahrensburg with single spore isolates and field collected samples of Peronospora sparsa among which 13 wild rose accessions were found to be resistant. Multiple resistances to two of the pathogens were found in 13 of the investigated accessions of which R. majalis 93-09-01 is highly resistant to all three pathogens, except for isolate Diplocarpon rosae 'AHE10'. These accessions, primarily those carrying multiple resistances, are a valuable genetic resource for the introduction of resistance genes to black spot, downy mildew and powdery mildew into cultivated garden roses.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".