Tomato Defense against Whiteflies under Drought Stress: Non-Additive Effects and Cultivar-Specific Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), and drought, which is becoming a central problem in agriculture due to global climate change. The separate effects of whitefly infestation and drought have been amply studied in many crop systems. However, less is known about their combined effects. To evaluate whether drought stress (DS) affects plant defense against whiteflies, we assessed the joint effects of whitefly infestation and DS on plant vegetative and reproductive performance in four tomato cultivars, and assessed the effects of DS on plant resistance and tolerance (compensatory ability) to whiteflies in a greenhouse experiment. Generally, we found negative effects of DS and whiteflies on plant performance, but the combined effects of DS and herbivory were not worse than those of either stress alone. In fact, plant performance under the combined effect of both stresses was usually similar to that in the presence of whiteflies without DS. Plants growing under DS had greater trichome density. However, plant resistance-as measured by whitefly population growth-decreased under DS in two cultivars and was unaffected in the other two. Compensatory ability decreased under DS in all but one cultivar. These cultivar-specific responses suggest genetic variation in resistance and tolerance to whiteflies and could be associated with differences in drought tolerance among cultivars. Our findings underscore the difficulty in predicting the combined effects of DS and herbivory and point to the need for a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying plant responses to both stresses at the molecular, cellular, and organismal levels.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".