Coexistence in Oilseed Rape: Effect of Donor Variety Type and Discarding Field Edges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oilseed rape is one of the most important sources of vegetable oil worldwide. Approximately 24% of the world’s total cultivation area in 2015 was planted with genetically modified (GM) varieties. Until now the cultivation of GM oilseed rape in the EU is not approved since coexistence of GM and non-GM oilseed rape is a matter of significant public concern. One reason is the differing information about pollen-mediated gene flow in this crop species. Therefore, in a 3-year field trial we investigated gene flow using a GM-free marker system consisting of a high erucic acid oilseed rape (HEAR) variety as pollen donor and a low erucic acid oilseed rape (LEAR) variety as pollen recipient. Donor and receptor fields were equally-sized (75 by 100 m or 0.75 ha) and separated by an isolation distance of 20 m clover-grass. Two different HEAR varieties, a hybrid variety and a line variety, were compared as pollen donor. Generally, outcrossing rates at 1 m field depth were significantly highest. A significant decrease in outcrossing was observed in the first donor-facing 20 m of recipient fields, with no further significant decrease in field depths > 20 m. Outcrossing rates of the total field harvest never exceeded 0.25%. Due to irregular patterns of outcrossing, a separated harvest of the receptor field edge facing the donor plot only marginally reduced the GM content in the total harvest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".