MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017187009 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.4141021x

Genetic Analysis of a Hulless × Covered Cross of Barley Using Doubled‐Haploid Lines

2001· article· en· W2017187009 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thin‐Meiw Choo, Keh Ming Ho, Richard A. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHordeum vulgareTest weightDoubled haploidyCultivarAgronomyPoaceaeIdeotypeEpistasisBotanyHorticulturePloidyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of the hulless (nud) and rough‐awned (Raw1) genes are not fully understood in hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). A study was initiated to (i) determine the potential of hulless lines in a hulless × covered cross, (ii) detect additive × additive epistasis and estimate genetic correlations, and (iii) determine the effects of hulless and rough‐awned genes on 11 agronomic traits of barley. Fifty covered lines and 48 hulless lines derived from a ‘Kunlun no. 1’ × ‘CIMMYT no. 6’ cross were evaluated for grain yield, test weight, seed weight, height, heading date, and maturity at two locations in Eastern Canada (Charlottetown and Ottawa) in 1998. Plant density, smut resistance, and scald resistance were also recorded at Charlottetown, while spike density was estimated at Ottawa. The 48 hulless lines contained 82 to 100% hulless kernels. At least one hulless line yielded similar to the highest yielding line if it was adjusted by the weight loss of the hull. This suggests that it is possible to breed for high‐yielding hulless barley cultivars. Additive × additive epistasis was detected for some of the traits. Yield was significantly correlated with test weight, seed weight, and height. In Eastern Canada, hullessness was associated with 17% lower plant density, 11 to 18% shorter plant height, 15 to 19% lower seed weight, 20 to 21% higher test weight, and 21 to 36% yield reduction. Hullessness, however, was not associated with heading date, maturity, smut resistance, scald resistance, and spike density. Since hulless progeny could have lower emergence rates and shorter plant heights, hulless barley breeding programs should avoid propagating segregating materials from hulless × covered crosses in bulk populations, as many hulless plants may be eliminated by competition. Rough‐awned hulless barley had more hulless kernels than smooth‐awned. Therefore, selection for rough‐awned plants could improve the threshability of hulless barley.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207