Evaluation of spring-type and winter-type <i>Brassica napus</i> germplasm for genetic diversity in response to flea beetle herbivory in typical and atypical planting windows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current practices of flea beetle ( Phyllotreta spp.) control in Brassica napus L. rely heavily on seed treatments and due to growing concerns regarding the safety of such treatments on non-target and beneficial insect populations, genetic resistance would be beneficial for a more balanced integrated pest management strategy. However, none of the registered B. napus. canola varieties exhibit measurable resistance to flea beetle injury. To this end, an evaluation of 14 winter-type B. napus breeding lines and 15 spring-type B. napus breeding lines for resistance to flea beetle feedings was conducted, as it was found that at least one line in each family exhibited noticeably reduced flea beetle damage compared to sister lines in a breeding nursery. The study revealed natural genetic variation within B. napus for flea beetle antixenosis which could be used by dedicated breeders to develop canola varieties with higher levels of flea beetle resistance. Data indicated that host plant resistance did not vary between feeding by newly emerged adult flea beetles in the fall and the overwintered adults in the spring in either winter-type or spring-type canola, as well as for adult feeding preferences. This indicates that favourable genes identified in in either habitat-type could be used interchangeably to confer resistance even though the flea beetle life cycle is different for each planting period, while either overwintered adults or newly emerged adults can be used to evaluate feeding damage.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".