Abstract
Crown rot caused by Fusarium pseudograminearum reduces the yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum) in Oregon. Observations of crown rot symptoms in traditional breeding and yield testing nurseries have not been useful for describing tolerance ratings of wheat cultivars. Yield data from inoculated experiments were therefore evaluated to determine if differences in cultivar response could be identified. A comparison of yields in inoculated and noninoculated plots was made for one group of spring wheat entries and four groups of winter wheat entries. Significant differences among spring wheat entries were identified and were validated against standards for tolerance and intolerance to F. pseudograminearum in Australia. Locally adapted and Australian standards exhibited a comparable range of yield reduction due to inoculation. Spring wheat tolerance reactions can be accurately described using as few as 24 yield comparisons. However, this screening method will not be practical for winter wheat due to stronger effects of year and location on the phenotypic tolerance response, requiring about 95 yield comparisons to accurately define the crown rot phenotype of a winter wheat cultivar.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
Spring wheat entries differed significantly in tolerance to crown rot, validated against Australian standards.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Interactor
- F. pseudograminearumFusarium pseudograminearume0pathogen
- Outcome
- differences among spring wheat entriese0
- Setting
- Australiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant differences among spring wheat entries were identified and were validated against standards for tolerance and intolerance to F. pseudograminearum in Australia.”
Claim · model-written summary
Locally adapted and Australian standards showed comparable yield reduction after inoculation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculatione0
- Outcome
- yield reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Comparator
- Australian standardse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Locally adapted and Australian standards exhibited a comparable range of yield reduction due to inoculation.”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Twenty-four yield comparisons can accurately describe spring wheat tolerance.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- tolerance reactionse0
- Value
- 24 yield comparisonse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spring wheat tolerance reactions can be accurately described using as few as 24 yield comparisons.”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter wheat screening requires about 95 yield comparisons because year and location have stronger effects.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- crown rot phenotypee0
- Value
- about 95 yield comparisonse0
- Qualifier
- stronger effects of year and locatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, this screening method will not be practical for winter wheat due to stronger effects of year and location on the phenotypic tolerance response, requiring about 95 yield comparisons to accurately define the crown rot phenotype of a winter wheat cultivar.”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 549 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
610 papers more in this group
See all 614 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.