Yield potential of spring turnip rape synthetics and composite hybrids compared with open-pollinated commercial cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yield potentials of spring turnip rape (Brassica rapa L.) synthetics and composite hybrids were compared with those of open-pollinated commercial cultivars during a 3-yr period (2000–2002). The trials included 16 synthetics and 25 composite hybrids derived from 22 different parent lines, as well as five open-pollinated commercial cultivars. All of the material tested had low erucic acid and glucosinolate contents and was well adapted for cultivation in southern Finland. The composite hybrids, which were tested for the first time in turnip rape, exhibited significantly higher seed yields than open-pollinated cultivars. The maximum commercial heterosis in seed yield was 18% in synthetics and 23% in composite hybrids. Both synthetics and composite hybrids showed better resistance to lodging than commercial cultivars. When studying the effect of commercial heterosis on seed yield, a high degree of variation was observed both within the synthetics and the composite hybrids. This result highlights the importance of testing parental combinations in turnip rape in order to find combinations that give the strongest heterotic effect. Key words: Turnip rape, Brassica rapa, synthetic, composite hybrid, seed yield, commercial heterosis
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".