Clonal Variation of Eucalypts in Susceptibility to Bacterial Wilt Detected by Using Different Inoculation Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Four inoculation methods were investigated for assessing the clonal variation of eucalypts in susceptibility to bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum). The results showed that these inoculation methods obviously differed in the disease infection process, clonal variation and clonal mean repeatability in susceptibility of stock materials inoculated. For each inoculation method, the clonal effect was consistently significant over the assessment period. Root-collar suspension injection method (RSI) yielded the highest relative clonal variation (0.67±0.086) and clonal mean repeatability (0.92±0.038) in both disease infected incidence and severity at the end of assessment, attributable to the enhanced genetic variation or low environment effect. For a given inoculation method, an early assessment time might exist for maximizing relative clonal variation or repeatability. It is desirable in breeding to adopt an inoculation method and/or efficient assessment time with high clonal variance component, which would in turn improve the efficiency of clonal screening.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".