Abstract
Obtaining a viable and fertile beet hybrid resulting from wild and cultivated sugar beet crosses under Moroccan conditions is challenging. To deal with hybridization, barriers in sugar beet, such as concordance of flowering period between biannual and annual subspecies, flowering aptitude according to vernalization requirement, genotype incompatibility and hybrid sterility, should be overcome. In our study, interspecific hybrids were obtained from crosses between 17 cultivated sugar beet Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris and 17 Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima, collected in different regions of Morocco. Twenty-two agro-morphological traits were used for the evaluation of 208 hybrid plants, under greenhouse conditions. CH and WH hybrids were collected on cultivated and wild parents separately. Most of the hybrids behaved as annual plants, of which 83.17% were able to flower and produce seeds without any vernalization requirements. All WH hybrids and 57.06% of CH hybrids were morphologically similar to their wild parent. However, 24% of CH hybrids were phenotypically similar to their cultivated parent. The remaining CH hybrid plants were behaving as intermediate genotypes between both wild and cultivated parents. Our results showed the success of interspecific beet crosses and emphasized the high variability among hybrid genotypes. This is of great importance for sugar beet improvement and breeding programs and interspecific crosses patterns understanding.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Most of the hybrids behaved as annual plants.
- Taxon
- Beta vulgaris
Beta vulgarist0 - Outcome
- behaved as annual plantse1
- Qualifier
- Most of the hybridse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wild beet Beta vulgaris L. subsp. maritima”
e1“Most of the hybrids behaved as annual plants”
Claim · model-written summary
83.17% of hybrids were able to flower and produce seeds without any vernalization requirement.
- Taxon
- Beta vulgarisBeta vulgarist0
- Outcome
- able to flower and produce seedse2
- Value
- 83.17%e2
- Qualifier
- without any vernalization requirementse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wild beet Beta vulgaris L. subsp. maritima”
e2“of which 83.17% were able to flower and produce seeds without any vernalization requirements”
Claim · model-written summary
All WH hybrids were morphologically similar to their wild parent.
- Taxon
- Beta vulgarisBeta vulgarist0
- Material
- WH hybridse4
- Outcome
- morphologically similar to their wild parente4
- Value
- Alle4
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wild beet Beta vulgaris L. subsp. maritima”
e3“Twenty-two agro-morphological traits were used for the evaluation of 208 hybrid plants, under greenhouse conditions”
e4“All WH hybrids and 57.06% of CH hybrids were morphologically similar to their wild parent”
Claim · model-written summary
57.06% of CH hybrids were morphologically similar to their wild parent.
- Taxon
- Beta vulgarisBeta vulgarist0
- Material
- CH hybridse4
- Outcome
- morphologically similar to their wild parente4
- Value
- 57.06%e4
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wild beet Beta vulgaris L. subsp. maritima”
e3“Twenty-two agro-morphological traits were used for the evaluation of 208 hybrid plants, under greenhouse conditions”
e4“All WH hybrids and 57.06% of CH hybrids were morphologically similar to their wild parent”
Claim · model-written summary
24% of CH hybrids were phenotypically similar to their cultivated parent.
- Taxon
- Beta vulgarisBeta vulgarist0
- Material
- CH hybridse5
- Outcome
- phenotypically similar to their cultivated parente5
- Value
- 24%e5
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wild beet Beta vulgaris L. subsp. maritima”
e3“Twenty-two agro-morphological traits were used for the evaluation of 208 hybrid plants, under greenhouse conditions”
e5“However, 24% of CH hybrids were phenotypically similar to their cultivated parent”
Claim · model-written summary
The remaining CH hybrid plants behaved as intermediate genotypes between the wild and cultivated parents.
- Taxon
- Beta vulgarisBeta vulgarist0
- Material
- CH hybrid plantse6
- Outcome
- behaving as intermediate genotypese6
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wild beet Beta vulgaris L. subsp. maritima”
e3“Twenty-two agro-morphological traits were used for the evaluation of 208 hybrid plants, under greenhouse conditions”
e6“The remaining CH hybrid plants were behaving as intermediate genotypes between both wild and cultivated parents”
Claim · model-written summary
Interspecific beet crosses succeeded and the hybrid genotypes showed high variability.
- Taxon
- Beta vulgarisBeta vulgarist0
- Outcome
- high variability among hybrid genotypese7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wild beet Beta vulgaris L. subsp. maritima”
e7“Our results showed the success of interspecific beet crosses and emphasized the high variability among hybrid genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Interspecific crosses of sugar beet and wild beet were successful.
- Taxon
- Beta vulgarisBeta vulgarist0
- Outcome
- success of interspecific beet crossese7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wild beet Beta vulgaris L. subsp. maritima”
e7“Our results showed the success of interspecific beet crosses and emphasized the high variability among hybrid genotypes”