Antixenosis Studies in Different Genotypes of Bitter Gourd Fruits against the Infestation of Melon Fruit Fly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In crop plants, three principle mechanism viz., non-preference (antixenosis), antibiosis and tolerance are responsible for imparting resistance to insects. Non preference denotes a group of plants character and insect response that keep away the insect from using a particular plant or variety for oviposit ion, food, shelter, or combination of both. Keeping in this view, seventy four promising genotypes of bitter gourd were screened against fruit fly infestation to identify the antixenosis traits involved in host plant selection by the melon fruit fly. On the basis of percent fruit infestation and the average number of larvae per damage fruit, the genotypes were categorized in to different groups i.e. (Highly resistant, resistant, moderately resistant, susceptible, and highly susceptible). The fruit infestation during the 2006 and 2007 summer season (Average of two years) ranged from 13.23% to 83.75%. Larval density per fruit ranged from 2.59 to 8.13 larvae per fruit. The larval density increased with the increase in percent fruit infestation and showed significant positive correlation (r = 0.98).The depth of ribs in resistant genotypes was higher as compared to susceptible genotypes. The number of seed was recorded maximum in the genotype VRBT-96 (31.8) and minimum was recorded in the genotype IC 68314(14.8). The fruit toughness had significant negative effect on fruit infestation(r = -0.52) and larval density (r = -0.57) of fruit fly. There was a strong correlation between number of ribs and fruit toughness, and these traits can be used as markers to select bitter gourd genotype resistant to melon fruit fly.
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".