Genetic diversity for agronomic, morphological and seed quality traits in <i>Sinapis alba</i> L. (yellow mustard)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to study the amount and pattern of phenotypic diversity among 179 Sinapis alba accessions maintained in germplasm collections at Plant Gene Resources of Canada (PGRC) and the Saskatoon Research Centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (SRC-AAFC). Accessions were evaluated in five field trials at Saskatoon from 1994 to 1998. Observations were recorded on number of days to flower and to mature, plant height, 1000-seed weight, oil and protein content and selected fatty acids and glucosinolates. Analysis of variance and mean comparisons were used to characterize variation in the germplasm. There was significant variation among accessions for all traits except some minor fatty acids and glucosinolates. Principal component analysis indicated that five or six principal components provided a good summary of the data, accounting for 75–80% of the variation. In all trials, the first principal component axis separated accessions predominantly on the basis of erucic acid (C22:1) and oleic acid (C18:1), with associated C22 and C18 fatty acids. The relative importance of agronomic, morphological and other seed quality traits varied among the trials, but they were always less important than C22:1 and C18:1. Cluster analysis generated 10–13 groups of accessions in each trial except in 1997 (five clusters). Distinct clusters were identified that possessed high or low values for C22:1, C18:1, oil and protein content, maturity, plant height and seed weight. Seed colour was not used as a classification variable; however, brown-seeded accessions were grouped into one distinct cluster due to a significantly higher level of C22:1 in these accessions. This study demonstrates that the S. alba accessions maintained at PGRC and SRC-AAFC are a source of genetic diversity for breeding both condiment (high glucosinolate and C22:1 content) and vegetable (low glucosinolate and C22:1 content) oilseed yellow mustard and for conducting genetic studies. Key words: Sinapis alba, genetic diversity, cluster analysis, principal component analysis
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) | 0.001 | 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".