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 (BC 1 , BC 2 , BC 3 and BC 4 ), 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 BC 4 were 21.3 and 65.3%, respectively. When honeybees were used as pollinators, almost all BC 4 plants produced mature seeds in the field. Most of the BC 1 , BC 2 , and BC 3 plants died by the end of the fourth year in the field, whereas 61% of the BC 4 plants survived for 4 yr. The number of chromosomes in 79% of the BC 4 plants was more than 28, which is greater than that of T. pratense. Differences in leaflet size and shape between BC 4 plants and T. pratense suggest that genes from T. medium were expressed in the BC 4 plants. These results indicate that BC 4 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".