Inheritance of yellow pigment concentration in seven durum wheat crosses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yellow pigment concentration of the endosperm due to the presence of xanthophyll and other related compounds is an important processing quality characteristic in durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum). There is also interest in plant pigments for health reasons because lutein, a major component of durum grain pigment, may play a role in prevention of age-related macular degen eration. Selection for pigment concentration of durum wheat is thus an important breeding objective. Clarification of environmental effects and the mode of inheritance would aid planning of crosses and selection strategies to improve pigment concentration. This study evaluated seven durum wheat crosses of high by low pigment concentration parents in five field trials grown at two or more locations for 2 or more years in western Canada. Pigment concentration varied with environment. A portion of the variability could be ascribed to environmental effects on kernel weight, which tended to be negatively correlated with pigment concentration in some crosses and years (r = 0.08 to -0.49), but was not consistent. Inheritance of pigment concentration was multigenic as evidenced by bi-directional transgressive segregation and estimates of the number of effective factors controlling the trait. The number of effective factors varied with cross and environment, ranging from 3 to 27. Heritability of pigment concentration was high when measured in replicated, multi-location, multiyear trials, and ranged from 0.88 to 0.95, but lower (0.34) in an unreplicated segregating cross. The complex inheritance of pigment concentration means that other genetic tools, such as DNA markers, will be required to improve choice of parents for crossing and selection strategies in breeding programs. Key words: Durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum), pigment concentration, inheritance, environment
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".