Breeding potential of the backcross progenies of a hybrid between <i>Trifolium medium</i> × <i>T. pratense</i> to <i>T. pratense</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, T. medium (zigzag clover, 2n = 80 and T. pratense (red clover, 2n = 28) were hybridized and backcrossed four times to T. pratense (BC1, BC2, BC3and BC4), and the seed production and vigor of the backcross progenies were assessed under field conditions. Both female and pollen fertility of the backcross progenies increased as the backcross generations advanced. Female and pollen fertility of BC4 were 21.3 and 65.3%, respectively. When honeybees were used as pollinators, almost all BC4 plants produced mature seeds in the field. Most of the BC1, BC2, and BC3 plants died by the end of the fourth year in the field, whereas 61% of the BC4 plants survived for 4 yr. The number of chromosomes in 79% of the BC4 plants was more than 28, which is greater than that of T. pratense. Differences in leaflet size and shape between BC4 plants and T. pratense suggest that genes from T. medium were expressed in the BC4 plants. These results indicate that BC4 plants may be useful for the improvement of the persistence of T. pratense. Key words: Backcross progeny, breeding material, interspecific hybridization, Trifolium medium, Trifolium pratense
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".