MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530925166 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n11p138

Combining Ability Analysis of Blast Disease Resistance and Agronomic Traits in Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn]

2016· article· en· W2530925166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lawrence Owere, Pangirayi Tongoona, John Derera, Nelson Wanyera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLeaf Properties and Growth Measurement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiallel crossBiologyMating designEleusineGermplasmGrain yieldPlant disease resistanceSelfingAgronomyHeritabilityPanicleHorticultureFinger milletGeneGeneticsMedicineHybrid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Blast disease is the most important biotic constraint to finger millet production. Therefore disease resistant varieties are required. However, there is limited information on combining ability for resistance and indeed other agronomic traits of the germplasm in Uganda. This study was carried out to estimate the combining ability and gene effects controlling blast disease resistance and selected agronomic traits in finger millet. Thirty six crosses were generated from a 9 × 9 half diallel mating design. The seed from the 36 F<sub>1</sub> crosses were advanced by selfing and the F<sub>2</sub> families and their parents were evaluated in three replications. General combining ability (GCA) for head blast resistance and the other agronomic traits were all highly significant (p ≤ 0.01), whereas specific combining ability (SCA) was highly significant for all traits except grain yield and grain mass head<sup>-1</sup>. On partitioning the mean sum of squares, the GCA values ranged from 31.65% to 53.05% for head blast incidence and severity respectively, and 36.18% to 77.22% for the other agronomic traits measured. Additive gene effects were found to be predominant for head blast severity, days to 50% flowering, grain yield, number of productive tillers plant<sup>-1</sup>, grain mass head<sup>-1</sup>, plant height and panicle length. Non-additive gene action was predominant for number of fingers head<sup>-1</sup>, finger width and panicle width. The parents which contributed towards high yield were <em>Seremi 2</em>, <em>Achaki</em>, <em>Otunduru</em>, <em>Bulo</em> and <em>Amumwari</em>. Generally, highly significant additive gene action implied that progress would be made through selection whereas non-additive gene action could slow selection progress and indicated selection in the later generations.</p>

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicLeaf Properties and Growth MeasurementFrench-language works237,207