Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving melon root systems by traditional breeding is one component of the program to develop multiple-stress-resistant melons at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Weslaco. Ten diverse melon lines representing four horticultural groups were intercrossed utilizing a Design II mating scheme. The male parents were: `PI 403994,' `Perlita,' `Doublon,' `Caravelle', and `PI 525106.' The female parents were: `Créme de Menthe,' `Magnum 45,' `BSK,' `PI 124111 × TDI', and `Deltex.' F 1 progeny were grown in pasteurized sand in the greenhouse using a randomized complete-block design with four reps. After 4 weeks, root systems from all plants were carefully washed to remove the sand. Each root system was then placed onto a glass, plated, and scanned into the computer software Rhizo Pro 3.8 (Regent Instruments, Quebec). This software calculated root lengths of various diameter classes, root area, and root tip number. All data was input into Agrobase software for calculation of genetic variances based on Design II analysis. Significant differences of contributions by male parents to progeny variation were few. Only length of roots with 1.0- to 1.5-mm-diameter and vine length were significantly different. Differences in contributions by female parents to all traits except root tip number were highly significant. No significant interaction effects were observed for any trait. Narrow-sense heritability estimates were moderate to high for all traits. The range was from 0.56 for root tip number by males to 0.81 for both length of 0.5- to 1.0-mm-diameter roots and vine length for females. Estimates for total root length (0.76) and root surface area (0.77) were high. The lack of male by female interaction suggests very low dominance genetic variation and contributed to high heritability estimates, which represent predominantly additive gene action. Additive genetic variation allows more-efficient progress by selection, making the potential for root system improvement favorable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".