The heterosis value of economically valuable traits in the multi-row hybrids F1 of spring barley obtained by saturating crossings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current paper has presented the analysis results of the value of heterosis and the degree of phenotypic dominance of hybrids F1 obtained by saturating crossings of two-row and multi-row spring barley forms. The purpose of the study was to determine the value of heterosis and the degree of phenotypic dominance of the main quantitative traits of the multi-row hybrids of spring barley. The study was carried out in the laboratory for grain crops and groats breeding of the FSBSI FRC of Agrobiotechnologies of the Far East named after A. K. Chayka. There were studied 68 varieties of multi-row spring barley forms selected from the world collection of IPI of various ecological and geographical origin. The two-row varieties ‘Primorsky 98’, ‘Primorsky 44’, ‘Primorsky 89’, ‘Tikhookeansky’ and ‘Vostochny’ developed by FSBSI FRC of Agrobiotechnologies of the Far East named after A. K. Chayka were taken as maternal forms. Four multi-row barley varieties ‘Kazminsky’ (Khabarovsk Territory), ‘Peguis’ (Canada), ‘Kolchan’ (Altai Territory), ‘07N1’ (China) with valuable economic traits were taken as a paternal form. There was conducted a five-fold backcrossing of hybrids with paternal forms and there were selected the populations of multi-row genotypes. The most of the hybrids F1 manifested their heterosis simultaneously according to four traits, productive tillering, number of grains per main head, grain weight per main head, and grain weight per a plant. Only two hybrids ‘Primorsky 98 x Kolchan’ and ‘Primorsky 89 x Peguis’ showed a depression. There was identified heterosis by the traits ‘number of grains per main head’, ‘grain weight per main head’ in all hybrids. When analyzing the inheritance of the trait ‘grain weight per a plant’, there was established overdominance of this trait at the highest values of the hybrids ‘Tikhookeansky x Peguis’ (9.7) and ‘Primorsky 44 x 07N1’ (5.2), the heterosis degree was 50.4% and 82.2%, respectively. There has been established that three hybrids ‘Primorsky 98 x 07N1’, ‘Primorsky 44 x 07N1’, ‘Tikhookeansky x Peguis’ can belong to the most promising ones.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".