Mapping QTL, Selection Differentials, and the Effect of <i>Rht‐B1</i> under Organic and Conventionally Managed Systems in the Attila × CDC Go Spring Wheat Mapping Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A randomly derived recombinant inbred line (RIL) population ( n = 163) from a cross between CIMMYT spring wheat ‘Attila’ and the Canadian ‘CDC Go’ was used to map quantitative trait loci (QTL) affecting various agronomic and quality traits. The experiment was also designed to investigate the feasibility of organic wheat breeding by determining selection differentials and the effect of Rht‐B1 in paired organic and conventional management systems. Heritability estimates differed between systems for five of nine traits measured; including grain yield, number of tillers, plant height, kernel weight, and grain protein content. Direct selection in each management system resulted in 50% or fewer selected individuals in common between the two systems, for eight of the nine (except for flowering time) studied traits. Most QTL were specific to either the organic or the conventional management system. However, consistent QTL for grain yield, grain volume weight, kernel weight, and days to flowering were mapped in both systems on chromosomes 6A, 1B, 3A, and 5B, respectively. The effect of Rht‐B1 was more pronounced in organic systems, where RILs carrying the wild‐type allele were taller, produced more grain yield with higher grain protein content, and suppressed weed biomass to a greater extent than those carrying dwarfing alleles. Results of the present study suggest that differences exist between the two management systems for QTL effects. Indirect selection of superior genotypes from one system to another will not result in the advancement of the best possible genotypes. Therefore, selection of spring wheat cultivars for organic systems should be conducted on organically managed lands.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".