Partial incompatibility between Scandinavian six-rowed barleys (Hordeum vulgare L.) and Hordeum bulbosum L., and its genetical basis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments have been carried out under phytotron conditions concerning the incompatibility found in certain European six-rowed barleys in crosses with Hordeum bulbosum. A cross between the Swedish variety ‘Agneta’ (incompatible) and the Canadian ‘Vanier’ (compatible), including the F1, B1, and B2 generations, has revealed a significant heterosis in production of haploids, ‘Agneta’, with 25.8% fruit set, has yielded as many haploids as ‘Vanier’, with 86.3% fruit set. In F1, however, with 73.1% fruit set, haploid plant yield has been doubled, matching the level of the two-rowed F1,-hybrid ‘Pernilla’ X ‘Sv 73608’. Apparently, the high fruit set in ‘Vanier’ is accompanied by an inferior embryo quality, and vice versa in ‘Agneta’. A two-factor model is suggested and tested biometrically. The “fruit development factor” seems to be nearly completely dominant, uni- or oligogenic, conforming to a simple additive/dominance model. The “embryo quality factor” is additive or weakly dominant: the number of genes involved is uncertain. Both factors are strongly influenced by the environment. Various Norwegian varieties have been tested and most of them resemble ‘Vanier’ in haploid production properties. The implications for breeding are discussed.
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".