Reaction of Sweet Cassava Genotypes to Xanthomonas phaseoli pv. manihotis From Three Regions of Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Xanthomonas phaseoli pv. manihotis (Xpm) is the causal agent of Cassava Bacterial Blight (CBB), one of the most important cassava diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the susceptibility of sweet cassava genotypes to strains of Xpm from three different geographic regions of Brazil in greenhouse conditions. The inoculation of 14 genotypes of cassava was made by cutting leaflets using scissors previously soaked in a bacterial suspension with 1 × 108 UFC ml-1 and also by inserting a soaked toothpick into the bud of the oldest leaf. The results showed significant differences when the cassava genotypes were individually evaluated in relation to the Xpm strains used; however, the relationship between cassava genotypes and Xpm strains was significant for wilt symptom. The UnB 1111 strain was more aggressive than the UnB 1386 strain based on the average value of the reaction grade, showing the variation that exists between the bacterial isolates from different regions. Considering the reaction of cassava germplasm’s resistance to the three strains used in the study, the BGMC 434 genotype was the only one classified as resistant based on the average reaction grade. The genotypes BGMC 753, BGMC 1289, BGMC 982 and the elite clones BRS 396, BRS 397, BRS 398, 259/08 and BRS 399 were classified as moderately resistant, which indicates the possibility of recommending them for disease favorable regions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".