Genetic Strategies for Enhancing Pest Resistance in Wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheat cultivation is often threatened by pests such as rye whitefly, Russian wheat aphid and green stink bug. These pests reduce wheat yield and quality worldwide. To reduce the use of pesticides, scientists have improved wheat's insect resistance through genetic modification. This approach is not only more environmentally friendly, but also addresses the problem of pest resistance. Traditional breeding, such as direct hybridization and backcrossing, has played a big role in introducing insect resistance. Now with technologies such as marker-assisted selection (MAS), quantitative trait loci mapping (QTL) and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), breeding efficiency has become higher. Next-generation sequencing and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing have also made it easier to find and modify insect-resistant genes. In addition, transgenic methods using Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins and RNA interference (RNAi) have enhanced wheat's insect resistance. Using genes from wild relatives and local varieties has also helped increase wheat's genetic diversity. Combining these genetic technologies with agricultural practices such as crop rotation and biological control constitutes an integrated pest management (IPM) strategy. Despite the progress made, new pests, the complexity of gene stacking, and technical cost issues remain challenges. In the future, research needs to make greater use of genetic resources, deepen the understanding of insect resistance mechanisms, and combine genomic selection and agronomic innovation. Only in this way can we breed wheat that is more resistant to pests, ensure food security, and achieve sustainable agriculture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".