Relative contribution of genotype, seed size and environment to secondary seed dormancy potential in Canadian spring oilseed rape (<i>Brassica napus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Secondary seed dormancy has been linked to seedbank persistence of volunteer oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in western Canada. It has been suggested that there is a genetic component to secondary seed dormancy expression in oilseed rape, but little is known of its importance in relation to non‐genetic factors. In a series of experiments we investigated the relative importance of genotype, seed size, time of windrowing and pre‐ and post‐harvest environment on the expression of secondary seed dormancy. We found that genotype contributed between 44 and 82% to the total variation in secondary seed dormancy. A broad range in secondary seed dormancy expression was observed among 16 genotypes examined. Nevertheless, three‐quarters of the genotypes investigated exhibited relatively high potential for the expression of secondary seed dormancy (back‐transformed mean 71% dormant seeds). Seed size contributed 21% to the total variation, while the influence of seed maturity (harvest regime) on secondary seed dormancy expression was negligible. Despite diverging environmental conditions during the four growing seasons spanning these experiments, the influence of pre‐harvest environment on seed dormancy expression was relatively small and ranged from 0.1% to 4.5%. Secondary seed dormancy potential decreased over time during seed storage. This decrease was greatest when seeds were stored at ambient temperatures and least when seeds were stored at −70°C.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".