Response of the legume <i>Macrotyloma axillare</i> ‘Java’ to different inoculum levels of <i>Meloidogyne javanica</i> and defence responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the relationship between Macrotyloma axillare ‘Java’ and Meloidogyne javanica at different levels of nematode inoculum, and to assess the activity of plant defence enzymes in the presence of nematodes. In Experiment 1, ‘Java’ and soybean (control) were inoculated with 300 to 8000 eggs + second-stage juveniles (J2) of M. javanica in two different periods (Trials 1 and 2). To confirm the results, a third trial was conducted using 1000 to 4000 eggs + J2 per plant. In Experiment 2, β-1,3-glucanase (GLU), phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), peroxidase (POX), and polyphenol oxidase (PPO) activities were measured in non-inoculated plants and in plants inoculated with 2000 eggs + J2. ‘Java’ presented a reproduction factor (RF) < 1 at all inoculum levels in Trial 1 (RF of 0.17–0.78) and at 2000, 3000, and 6000 eggs + J2 in Trial 2 (RF of 0.47, 0.86, and 0.59, respectively). In Trial 3, ‘Java’ showed a RF < 1 at all inoculum levels except for 3000 eggs + J2 (RF = 1.1). There was no difference in ‘Java’ vegetative variables in relation to inoculum levels in any experiment. In Experiment 2, inoculated plants showed increased GLU, PAL, POX, and PPO activities, when compared with non-inoculated plants. ‘Java’ appears to be moderately resistant to M. javanica, reducing nematode reproduction at different inoculum levels. The plant exhibits increased GLU, PAL, POX, and PPO activities in the presence of M. javanica.
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) | 0.000 | 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".