The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Critical Analysis of Durable Resistance
Abstract
Durable resistance to a disease is resistance that remains effective during its prolonged and widespread use in an environment favorable to the disease (22, 23). The test for durable resistance must include two elements, time (long) and area (large). Resistance in a cultivar cannot justifiably be described as durable if the cultivar has been grown only in small-scale experiments, even if such tests are repeated at many locations and over several or many years. Experience shows that resistance that survives such tests may nevertheless not survive widespread use under agricultural conditions (see below). Nor can resistance be described as durable if it has only been used briefly, even though on a large area. Based on this definition, it is not correct to argue that the resistance of a cultivar can be made more durable by growing it less, as in its use in cultivar mixtures or multilines. Discussions on extending the usefulness of resistance by using cultivar mixtures or multilines, or by gene deployment, are based on exploitation of the whole system, one purpose of whlch is to avoid elCposing the individual cultivars to a powerful test of the durability of their resistance. This is a distinct topic that has been widely discussed (3, 65) and will not be considered here. This review is therefore restricted to aspects of disease resistance and its genetic control in relation to durable resistance in individual cultivars.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Genetics and Expression of Resistance in Plants to Rusts of the Genus Puccinia
Hooker, A. L. (1967) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.py.05.090167.001115 · Cited by 98
Cited by
Loss of Function of a Proline-Containing Protein Confers Durable Disease Resistance in Rice
Fukuoka, S., Saka, N., Koga, H., Ono, K., Shimizu, T., Ebana, K., Hayashi, N., Takahashi, A., Hirochika, H., Okuno, K., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1175550 · Cited by 678
P ATHOGEN F ITNESS P ENALTY AS A P REDICTOR OF D URABILITY OF D ISEASE R ESISTANCE G ENES
Leach, J. E., Vera Cruz, C. M., Bai, J., & Leung, H. (2001) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.39.1.187 · Cited by 359
Population Genetics of Plant Pathogenic Fungi
McDonald, B. A., & McDermott, J. M. (1993) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1312063 · Cited by 171
Gene pyramiding for sustainable crop improvement against biotic and abiotic stresses
Dormatey, R., Sun, C., Ali, K., Coulter, J. A., Bi, Z., & Bai, J. (2020) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy10091255 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, R.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Phytopathology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1984-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 309-330
- ISSN
- 0066-4286 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2107
- OpenAlex
- W2104745202
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Critical Analysis of Durable Resistance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.py.22.090184.001521
- The paper
- Johnson, R. (1984). A Critical Analysis of Durable Resistance. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.22.090184.001521
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.