Hybridization Breeding between Triploid OT Lily and Diploid Oriental Lily
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was aimed to find out the law of hybridization breeding between triploid OT lily and diploid O lily, and breed interspecific hybrids. The conventional compression method was used to analyze maternal chromosome karyotypes. The cut style and normal stigma pollination methods were applied in cross hybridization between OT×O. The direct ovule inoculation method was used for embryo rescue at different time after pollination. In this study, 6 OT lilies as female parents were all triploids. The normal stigma pollination method was obviously better than the cut style method, the former fruit and seed setting rates were both evidently higher than the latter. In 24 OT(♀)×O(♂) hybridized combinations, 16 combinations could bear fruits accounting for 66.67%. Most of 16 combinations could generate plump seeds and the seed set rate was from 2.49% to 16.78%. 4 O(♀)×OT(♂) back-cross and 6 OT(♀)×OT(♂) self-cross combinations had no fruits. It was the most effective to do embryo rescue on the 60 d after pollination and the ovule germinating speed was the fastest with the emergence rate of 5.45%~18.56%. This study preliminarily revealed the law of hybridization breeding between triploid OT lily (♀) and diploid O lily (♂), which would lay the foundation for creating aneuploid variation and cultivating new breeds of interspecific hybrid.
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) | 0.000 | 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".