Ploidy Identification and Analysis of <i>Saccharum</i> and Its Related Genera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to provide basis for the genetic improvement efficiency of sugarcane, and to find out the ploidy of sugarcane and its related genera and cultivated species, the ploidy of sugarcane and its related genera was systematically analyzed and identified by flow cytometry for the first time in this study. The results showed that the ploidy of the tropical species of Saccharum was 8 and 10, in which the ploidy of typical tropical species Badila was 8 and that of atypical tropical species Kala Wa was 10. The ploidy of S. barberry was 8 and 16.8, and the ploidy of Mungo was 8 and that of Pansahi was 16. The ploidy of S. sinense Yuba and reed cane was 9.8 and 10, respectively. The ploidy of S. spontaneum was 6.3~9.2 and most of them were about 8, while the ploidy of S. robustum was 14.4. The ploidy of Erianthus , the related genera of Saccharum , was 3.3~7.9, and the ploidy of S. arundinaceum and Erianthus rockii was 7.1~7.9 and 3.3~3.8, respectively. There were two kinds of ploidy in Miscanthus (1.4 and 4.8) and the ploidy of Narenga was 3.6~5.2. The ploidy of hybrid cultivars of Saccharum was relatively higher, which was 8.2~12.3, and ploidy of 9~10 was the most common. The ploidy of Saccharum and its related genera and cultivated species was systematically proved for the first time in this research, and the lowest ploidy was in Miscanthus (1.4) and the highest ploidy was in Pansahi (16.8), indicating that Saccharum was an aneuploid plant with complex genetic background. The results of this study could be used to guide the configuration of sugarcane hybrid combinations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".