Study of Radiation Effects on Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Pollen Grain Irradiated by 60Co-gamma Ray
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studied the effects of 60Co-gamma ray on the pollen grains of upland cotton. The irradiation effects on pollen grains were tested in terms of the ultrastructural changes in the exine and interior of pollen grains, their germination rate, the single primer amplification reaction polymorphism of ovule developed after the pistils were pollinated by the pollen grains which had been irradiated with 60Co-gamma ray, and the law of genetic variation of their M1, M2 progeny. The results showed that 60Co-gamma ray had no effects on the exine wall of the pollen grains. The interior structure of pollen grain were destroyed significiantly. The interior wall became thin and irregular, and part of it concavitied to the inner. The endoplasmic reticulum depolymerized. The amount and the density of pollen grain inclusions increased. The number of pollen tubes in style decreased by 38%, compared with the control group (natural pollen grain). The single primer amplification reaction polymorphism of ovule increased. The germination percentage of M1 progeny was decreased by 41.03%. And with the cotton plants of M1 progeny, the length of taproot, longest lateral root, average lateral root, the number of lateral root, and the height of seedling decreased by 22.24%, 18.93%, 11.80%, 28.02%, 23.05%, respectively, compared with the control group. The percentage of sterility plants was 56.7%. The coefficients of variations of boll number, lint percentage, perimeter of stem, seed index, fruit branch number, longissimus fruit branch and plant height increased by 103.206%, 74.588%, 75.96%, 69.83%, 33.25% and 29.624%, 11.843%, respectively., compared with the control group. With the cotton plants of M2 progeny, the percentage of sterility plants was 56.7%. And the coefficients of variations of boll number, seed cotton yield, fruit branch number, plant height, boll height, and lint percentage increased by 21.944%, 16.261%, 3.827%, 3.986%, 7.25% and 0.497%, respectively., compared with the control group. The coefficients of variations and change range of agronomic traits in M2 progeny were less than them in M1 progeny.
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".