Selective fertilization in interspecific crosses of allotetraploid species of <i>Gossypium</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genus Gossypium is composed of both diploid and allotetraploid species. The five allotetraploid species of Gossypium are sexually compatible, and only partial sexual barriers have been described. Natural hybrids among them do not occur or occur in situ with very low frequency in Brazil in the rare places where cultivated upland cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) occurs in a sympatric range with Gossypium barbadense L. or Gossypium mustelinum Miers. We evaluated the presence of pollen competition as a prezygotic barrier in crosses between upland cotton and G. barbadense and G. mustelinum. We found that G. barbadense pollinated with a mixture of 50% upland cotton and 50% G. barbadense pollen resulted in 17.4%–31.1% interspecific hybrids, depending upon the upland cotton genotype used as pollen donor. Mixtures containing pollen from G. mustelinum and upland cotton, used to pollinate G. mustelinum in proportions of 25%:75%, 50%:50%, and 75%:25%, produced 61.3%, 22.5%, and 3.6% interspecific hybrids, respectively. These low rates of hybrid production demonstrate that pollen competition is present with G. mustelinum and G. barbadense and confirms this mechanism as a sexual barrier.
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".