Improvement of Open‐Pollinated Spring Rapeseed (<i>Brassica napus</i> L.) Through Introgression of Genetic Diversity from Winter Rapeseed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The winter and spring types of oilseed Brassica napus L. belong to distinctly different genetic groups. Hence, it should be possible to use winter types for the improvement of spring type B. napus We investigated the effect of introgression of alleles from winter type into open‐pollinated Canadian spring B. napus cultivars. Crosses were made between two European winter rapeseed cultivars, Aviso and Tequila, a Canadian spring doubled‐haploid (DH) line, A03‐3NR, and two DH populations developed from F 2 plants. A total of 134 simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers from 19 linkage groups were evaluated on the three parents, of which 84 markers were polymorphic. Based on these markers, genetic similarity between the two winter parents was estimated to be 0.49, whereas it was only 0.27 between the spring and the two winter parents. Thirty‐seven selected polymorphic markers were tested on the two DH populations, which detected a total of 94 alleles. Occurrence of the alleles from the winter parent ranged from 17.0 to 59.9% in DH population of Aviso × A03‐3NR, whereas in the population of Tequila × A03‐3NR it ranged from 13.8 to 50.0%. Estimates based on unweighted pair‐group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) genetic similarity and principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) clearly depicted a group of DH lines falling close to the winter type. Seed yield in these DH populations was significantly higher than in the spring parent. Thus, introgression of winter germplasm into spring rapeseed is an important approach to broaden the genetic base of open‐pollinated spring rapeseed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".