Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of tomato genotypes for resistance to root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root-knot nematode is a major constraint to tomato cultivation in open and protected structures. Resistance sources need to be continuously identified for combating pathogens affecting the yield. In the present studies, forty-seven genotypes of tomato were evaluated phenotypically along with their genotypic characterization. On the basis of their phenotypic reaction, the genotypes were grouped into four categories viz.: resistant, moderately resistant, susceptible and highly susceptible. Of these genotypes, only five were found to be resistant while forty-two were rated from moderately resistant to highly susceptible. Multiplication of Meloidogyne incognita was greatly reduced (Rf < 1) in resistant genotypes as compared to susceptible genotypes. Root galling index was also very low in resistant genotypes. Using molecular markers, the presence of the Mi-1.2 resistance gene was also confirmed in five resistant genotypes (L-0272, NR-14, L-097, L-0275 and PNR-7). These resistant sources could become a source of germplasm in breeding programs for the development of resistant cultivars.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".