MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interspecific hybridization – an important source for sweet and sour cherry breeding

2024· article· en· W4404944953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mirko Schuster, S. Schröpfer, Henryk Flachowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Horticulturae · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSour cherryInterspecific competitionInterspecific hybridizationBiologyBotanyHybridCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The limited of genetic diversity in cherry cultivars has reduced the adaptability to changing growing and climatic conditions of these species. Interspecific hybridizations have been used in many fruit breeding programs to increase the genetic diversity and to introduce new traits in fruit crops. In sour cherry, Prunus cerasus, the first interspecific crosses with P. maackii and P. fruticosa were released by I. V. Michurin in Russia and L. Kerr in Canada in the first half of the 20th century to increase the winter hardness of sour cherries. Various interspecific crosses and backcrosses have been carried out in the cherry breeding program at Dresden-Pillnitz during the last 20 years. In sweet cherry, P. avium, crosses with P. canescens, P. armeniaca, and P. tomentosa have been made, and in sour cherry with P. maackii, P. padus, P. serotina, and P. spinosa. The objectives of this breeding program are obtain of genotypes with new fruit and tree characteristics and with a higher level of resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. The diploid Prunus species P. canescens, the tetraploid species P. maackii, and P. serotina are promising resistance donors for cherry breeding. For F1 progenies from crosses between sweet cherry and apricot showed a high tolerance of flowers to spring frost was observed and they had interesting fruit characteristics such as size, firmness and shelf-life in the first growing years. The material will be characterized in further studies. Interesting genotypes will be used for breeding process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa HorticulturaeSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207