the inception of agriculture. Farmers and plant breeders continue to use these

Overview

This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.

Key numbers

The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:

• CITATION Thrissur, Kerala, India, 7Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, National Institute of the Republic of Serbia,
• (Meyer et al., 2012). To get a fuller insight into these unanswered method of plant breeding (Table 1) since all other breeding methods
• TABLE 1 Application of different classical techniques in crop improvement.
• evolvability of certain features (Table 1). It imparts a known crop improvement, particularly for creating disease-resistant
• variation (Raihan et al., 2016b). QTL mapping has been used produce false positive results, which means the association between
• TABLE 2 Application of advanced breeding techniques in crop improvement.
• (Table 2). The process involves chemically inducing errors in the Speed breeding innovation was stimulated by NASA, aiming to
• generation (Figure 5). Another technology that rapidly produced 2018; Borovsky et al., 2020) (Table 2). DS Faraday was the first wheat
• TABLE 3 Application of genome editing in crop improvement.
• TABLE 3 (Continued) Application of genome editing in crop improvement.
• 36 genes potentially involved in leaf 10% increase in leaf size Impens et al. (2023)
• TABLE 3 (Continued) Application of genome editing in crop improvement.
• For example, Cas1 and Cas2 are involved in the adaptation phase of modifications in crops (Table 3). This technology has several
• range of organisms, including plants, to precisely and efficiently edit This overcomes regulatory issues (Jones, 2015). There are several
• Cas technology for a wide range of applications. et al., 2020). CRISPR/CAS9 as stated above causes double-stranded
• This can be done by either mutating existing genes or adding outcomes (Table 2). Most significant is breeding for resistance in
• (Table 3), but there are still challenges to overcome, such as off- breeding programs. Haplotype-based approaches provide
• various crops, and one notable example is in the field of rice of these crops (Kamenya, et al., 2021). For orphan legumes (pea,
• mechanisms. However, these species lack global trade and performance (Table 4). Enhancing essential nutrients such as
• TABLE 4 Potential role of genome editing in orphan crops.
• Teff SEMIDWARF-1 (SD-1) Semi-dwarfism and lodging resistance Beyene et al. (2022)
• causing pathogens nearly around 50% of total yield loss attributed
• (SD-1) gene confers lodging resistance in tef (Eragrostis tef). Plant Biotechnol. J. 20, Chang, H. H., and Lieber, M. R. (2016). Structure-specific nuclease activities of
• et al. (2015). Heritable site-specific mutagenesis using TALEN s in maize. Plant
• Miki, B., Abdeen, A., Manabe, Y., and MacDonald, P. (2009). Selectable marker genes Peng, J., Richards, D. E., Hartley, N. M., Murphy, G. P., Devos, K. M., Flintham, J. E.,
• the efficiency and targeting range of cytidine base editors through fusion of a single- Zhu, R., Luo, Y., and Bai, Y. (2019). Improving nutritional quality of crops through genome

Methods (brief)

• 1992. were developed. Within a few years, high-density DNA is collected, and the individuals are genotyped using molecular
• Teff SEMIDWARF-1 (SD-1) Semi-dwarfism and lodging resistance Beyene et al. (2022)
• (SD-1) gene confers lodging resistance in tef (Eragrostis tef). Plant Biotechnol. J. 20, Chang, H. H., and Lieber, M. R. (2016). Structure-specific nuclease activities of
• Hargrove, T. R., and Cabanilla, V. L. (1979). The impact of semidwarf varieties on Jansen, R., Embden, J. D. V., Gaastra, W., and Schouls, L. M. (2002). Identification of

Implications

This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.

Wiki pages this source may touch

• Fish — marine, non-predatory (sardines, anchovies, salmon, cod)
• Root-Vegetable Purees
• Cadmium

Verification notes

• Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing wiki/sources/ pages before creation.
• Full-PDF read: pdftotext -layout was run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written.
• Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
• Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
• HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.

Update history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.