Production of New Cotton Interspecific Hybrids with Enhanced Fiber Fineness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve cotton fiber fineness, the (Gossypium hirsutum L. × Gossypium longicalyx Hutch. & Lee)² allohexaploid and the [(Gossypium hirsutum L. × Gossypium thurberi Tod.)² × G. longicalyx] allotetraploid were backcrossed to G. hirsutum to produce introgressed genetic stocks. The ribbon width (RW) of 600 swelled fibers produced by the hybrids, their parents, and their backcross progeny were analyzed for each compared genotype using an optical microscope. The RWs varied between 6.41±2.15 µm for G. longicalyx to 17.45±2.98 µm for the G. hirsutum parent cultivar C2. Fibers produced by the trispecific hybrids and their progeny were finer than the bispecific hybrid material. For the introgressed stocks, the lowest RWs were observed for the trispecific hybrid (10.79±2.14 µm) and certain backcross progenies (between 11.98±1.27 µm to 12.71±1.61 µm). The allohexaploid RW was 13.58±1.41 µm. One of its tetraploid progeny produced approximately the same value (13.94±2.48 µm). These results show that G. longicalyx is a potential genetic stock for cotton fiber fineness improvement. The genetic stocks produced are valuable materials for improve the fineness of cotton fiber.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".