The Effect of the Different Transgenic BT Cotton Technology on the Fiber Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgenic crops that contain Cry genes from B. thuringiensis (Bt) were commercialized in many countries and widely adopted by farmers over the last 17 years. The cultivation of transgenic crops expressing B. thuringiensis (Bt) toxins to control insect pests provides both economical and environmental benefits from reductions in chemical insecticide use, effective control of pests and minimal impact on non-target organisms. The objective of this research was to know the effect of different transgenic Bt cotton on the fiber quality of different Bt cotton varieties. Three transgenic Bt cotton varieties CCR141, CCRI79 and Bollgard II were planted in the field of Institute of Cotton Research Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences during 2012 and 2013. Randomly 50 bolls lint sample were collected from top, middle and bottom of the cotton plants. The fiber obtained from the boll samples was used to measure the cotton fiber staple length (mm), staple elongation (%), staple micronaire value, staple strength (cN/tex) and staple uniformity (%) by using HVI equipment at Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of cotton Quality, China. The result shows that lint quality characters of transgenic cotton varieties were not significantly affected compared with conventional non Bt variety during 2012 and 2013 but fiber strength is significantly affected during 2013. In conclusion there was no effect of transgenic Bt cotton on the fiber quality of cotton during 2012 and 2013.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".