Determination of Potential Pollinizer Grafted Pear Hybrids (Pyrus communis × Pyrus pyrifolia) for Subtropical Regions in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pear tree is originally a temperate-climate fruit tree. The cross Pyrus communis × Pyrus pyrifolia generated hybrid cultivars adapted to subtropical regions. However, the low effective fruiting is a limiting factor for the expansion of pear tree crops in subtropical regions and no pollinizer plants have been identified for these cultivars in subtropical regions. This work aimed to identify possible pollinizer pear tree cultivars in subtropical regions by evaluating the stigmatic receptivity, the germination percentage, and the number of pollen grains. Seven hybrid pear cultivars were used. Flowers of each cultivar at each floral stage were collected (E, E2, F, F2, and G). The stigmatic receptivity was evaluated by immersing the material in 3% hydrogen peroxide. Flowers were collected for the quantification of anthers, pollen grains per anther and per flower, and pollen grain germination. Stigmas were 100% receptive for all cultivars at the F2 and G stages. Cultivar Cascatense showed a large number of anthers and pollen grains per anther and per flower. The highest pollen grain germination percentage was detected for Cascatense (72.75%). Cultivars Seleta and Triunfo have high stigmatic receptivity for a longer period during the flowering stage, proven to be a potential female parent. Cascatense has a higher germination percentage and a larger number of anthers per flower, pollen grains per anther, and pollen grains per flower. Cascatense has a high potential to be used as a pollinizer, both in pear tree breeding programs and commercial orchards.
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".