Relationship of seed quality traits for greenhouse-grown versus field-grown high erucic acid rapesseed: Is seed quality trait selection for greenhouse-grown seed worthwhile?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of the relationship of seed quality traits for greenhouse-grown and field-grown seed samples was conducted. Early generation high erucic acid rapeseed (HEAR) cross progeny were grown in the greenhouse, selfed and then the selfed seeds were grown in the field at the University of Manitoba. The oil, protein, erucic acid and glucosinolate concentrations of greenhouse-grown versus field-grown seed samples were compared. There were differences (P ≤ 0.01) between the means of all seed quality traits for greenhouse-grown versus field-grown seed samples. The mean oil, protein and erucic acid concentrations of field-grown seed samples were higher than for greenhouse-grown seed samples. In contrast, the mean glucosinolate concentration of greenhouse-grown seed samples was higher than for field-grown seed samples. Rank correlations between greenhouse-grown seed samples and field-grown seed samples for all seed quality traits were significant but moderate in magnitude. Selection for oil, protein, erucic acid and glucosinolate concentration in greenhouse-grown seed samples dramatically increased the number of high seed quality F4 families in the field and was successful for all seed quality traits. It is concluded that seed quality selection in greenhouse-grown seed samples is worthwhile and that this procedure could lead to greater efficiencies in Brassica plant breeding programs. Key words: Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), oil, protein, erucic acid, glucosinolates
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".