Gene flow between imidazolinone‐tolerant and – susceptible winter oilseed rape varieties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Krato C & Petersen J (2012). Gene flow between imidazolinone‐tolerant and – susceptible winter oilseed rape varieties. Weed Research 52, 187–196. Summary Imidazolinone‐tolerant (IT) spring oilseed rape was developed in 1987 using conventional breeding methods and first marketed in Canada in 1996. IT winter oilseed rape will be introduced into the European market. On the one hand, the IT cropping system provides the opportunity for post‐emergence weed control in oilseed rape. On the other hand, the introduction of a new herbicide‐tolerance (HT) trait into the European cropping systems may lead to new challenges for weed control in crop rotations containing winter oilseed rape. In this study, a 2‐year field and glasshouse study was carried out to determine the transfer frequency of the HT trait from IT winter oilseed rape plants to adjacently grown susceptible winter oilseed rape plants. Furthermore, cross‐resistance to sulfonylureas and differences in herbicide response of heterozygous and homozygous IT winter oilseed rape varieties to triflusulfuron‐methyl were examined. The transfer frequency of the resistance trait and zygosity of the F1‐generation was investigated using a real‐time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Outcrossing frequencies ranged from 2.05% in a westerly direction and 0.57% in an easterly direction at the closest distance of 2 m between pollen donor (IT oilseed rape plants) and pollen acceptor (imidazolinone‐susceptible plants). Outcrossing events decreased significantly with increasing distance from the pollen donor, but IT F1‐plants were still found at a distance of 45 m. Of the analysed F1‐oilseed rape plants, 84% showed both independent tolerance genes for imidazolinone‐tolerance (PM1 and PM2) and were heterozygous for both genes. IT winter oilseed rape plants showed a cross‐tolerance against triflusulfuron‐methyl, and the corresponding resistance factors were higher for homozygous biotypes compared with heterozygous ones. Consequently, outcrossing can result practically in IT volunteers with cross‐tolerance to triflusulfuron‐methyl.
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".