Elucidation of gene action and combining ability for productive tillering in spring barley
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to identify breeding and genetic peculiarities for productive tillering in spring barley genotypes of different origin, purposes of usage and botanical affiliation, as well as to identify effective genetic sources to further improving of the trait. There were created two complete (6 × 6) diallel crossing schemes. Into the Scheme I elite Ukrainian (MIP Tytul and Avhur) and Western European (Datcha, Quench, Gladys, and Beatrix) malting spring barley varieties were involved. Scheme II included awnless covered barley varieties Kozyr and Vitrazh bred at the Plant Production Institute named after V. Y. Yuriev of NAAS of Ukraine, naked barley varieties Condor and CDC Rattan from Canada, as well as awned feed barley variety MIP Myroslav created at MIW and malting barley variety Sebastian from Denmark. For more reliable and informative characterization of barley varieties and their progeny for productive tillering in terms of inheritance, parameters of genetic variation and general combining ability (GCA) statistical analyses of experimental data from different (2019 and 2020) growing seasons were conducted. Accordingly to the indicator of phenotypic dominance all possible modes of inheritance were detected, except for negative dominance in the Scheme I in 2020. The degree of phenotypic dominance significantly varied depending on both varieties involved in crossing schemes and conditions of the years of trials. There was overdominance in loci in both schemes in both years. The other parameters of genetic variation showed significant differences in gene action for productive tillering between crossing Schemes. In Scheme I in both years the dominance was mainly unidirectional and due to dominant effects. In the Scheme II in both years there was multidirectional dominance. In Scheme I compliance with the additive-dominant system was revealed in 2019, but in 2020 there was a strong epistasis. In Scheme II in both years non-allelic interaction was identified. In general, the mode of gene action showed a very complex gene action for productive tillering in barley and a significant role of non-genetic factors in phenotypic manifestation of the trait. Despite this, the level of heritability in the narrow sense in both Schemes pointed to the possibility of the successful selection of individuals with genetically determined increased productive tillering in the splitting generations. In Scheme I the final selection for productive tillering will be more effective in later generations, when dominant alleles become homozygous. In Scheme II it is theoretically possible to select plants with high productive tillering on both recessive and dominant basis. In both schemes the non-allelic interaction should be taken into consideration. Spring barley varieties Beatrix, Datcha, MIP Myroslav and Kozyr can be used as effective genetic sources for involvement in crossings aimed at improving the productive tillering. The results of present study contribute to further development of studies devoted to evaluation of gene action for yield-related traits in spring barley, as well as identification of new genetic sources for plant improvement.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it