Evaluation of Lines from a Farmer Participatory Organic Wheat Breeding Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Involving farmers directly in early‐generation selection may contribute to the development of well‐adapted organic wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) germplasm. This project involved a partnership between a professional breeder and farmers. Progeny from 19 spring wheat crosses were distributed to eight organic farmers (three populations per farmer) in southern Manitoba, Canada. Each farmer selected for three consecutive years, resulting in 23 unique advanced lines. The farmer‐selected lines were compared with eight registered cultivars and one landrace cultivar in replicated field experiments at a total of three site years in 2014 and 2015. Although there was significant variation in agronomic performance of different farmer‐selected lines, the farmer selections were generally taller, later maturing, more susceptible to lodging; farmer selections were higher yielding than the check cultivars at one site‐year. When selecting from the same population, farmers produced distinctively different lines; differences were observed in disease response, days to maturity, height, lodging, and yield. The highest yielding wheats included farmer‐selected lines, a heritage cultivar, and two modern checks, one bred for organic conditions and one with a unique insect resistance trait. This preliminary study shows the potential of farmers working together with a professional breeder to produce wheat germplasm for organic production. Results also confirm the value of certain conventional cultivars to organic production.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".