Inheritance of stem solidness in eight durum wheat crosses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yield loss from sawfly (Cephus cinctus Norton) can be prevented by growing solid-stemmed wheat. No solid-stemmed durum cultivars (Triticum turgidumL. var. durum) are registered in Canada, even though solid-stemmed lines are available. Understanding the inheritance of stem solidness in such lines would be useful to breeders. Eight crosses were made between solid-stemmed and hollow-stemmed durums: Trinakria/DT369, Trinakria/DT367, Hugenot G/DT369, Hugenot W/DT369, 8678-1048A/Hugenot W, 8678-1048A/Hugen ot G, Kamilaroi/Hugenot G, and W9262-260D3/Kofa. Trinakria, Hugenot G, Hugenot W and W9262-260D3 are solid-stemmed and the other parents are hollow stemmed. Stem solidness was measured in field trials. The F1 were solid-stemmed, and the F2 of five of the seven crosses were not significantly different (P > 0.05) from a three solid-stemmed to one hollow-stemmed segregation ratio. The backcross of the solid-stemmed parents with the F1 was 100% solid-stemmed, and the backcross of the hollow-stemmed parents with the F1 was not significantly different (P > 0.05) from an expected one solid-stemmed to one hollow-stemmed segregation ratio. The F1 derived doubled haploids did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) from an expected one solid-stemmed to one hollow-stemmed segregation ratio. The expression of stem solidness fit the expected segregation ratios for a single dominant gene model in most of the crosses, which suggests that stem solidness in the four durums evaluated is controlled by a single dominant gene. Key words: Inheritance, sawfly, solid-stemmed, Triticum turgidum L. var. durum
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".