Metabolic cost of resistance in clubroot-resistant canola and napa cabbage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic resistance is widely used to manage clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) in canola (Brassica napus) and other brassica crops. Replicated field trials were conducted with three clubroot-resistant cultivars and one susceptible cultivar of either canola or napa cabbage (B. rapa) in southern Ontario in 2014 and 2015. These studies indicated that plant growth and development in resistant cultivars of both crops were often reduced at high concentrations of inoculum (resting spores) of the pathogen. In napa cabbage, leaf length was reduced by 31% in 2014 and 22% in 2015 at a site with high spore concentration relative to a site with lower concentration. In canola, height of resistant plants was reduced by 30%, biomass by 43%, and maturity was delayed at a site with high spore concentration relative to an adjacent site with lower spore concentration in 2014. However, there were no differences among sites in 2015. A growth room study demonstrated that plant height of a clubroot-resistant canola cultivar declined by 12–14% at high spore concentrations. Biomass of canola was also lower and maturity was delayed with increasing concentration of spores in some, but not all, field and laboratory studies. We suggest that the expression of resistance to clubroot in resistant cultivars can result in reduced plant growth and development in both B. rapa and B. napus, but that substantial reductions in plant growth and development occur only at high concentrations (> 106 g−1) of resting spores in soil.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".