Implications of selection history on genetic architecture of growth, form, and wood-quality traits in <i>Pinus radiata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal trials of Pinus radiata D. Don (radiata pine), representing two populations (or breeds), one selected for growth and form (GF) and the other selected for high wood density as well as growth and form (HD), were replicated on two low-altitude New Zealand sites: Tarawera (pumice soil, 38°08′S) and Woodhill (coastal dune, 36°42′S). The GF material comprised 33 pair-crosses (19 parents) × 10 clones, and the HD material comprised 19 single-pair crosses (35 parents) × 10 clones, with six ramets per clone per site. Diameter (DBH), two tree-form variables, and needle retention (NRA) were assessed 8 years after planting, and wood density (DEN), acoustic velocity, and collapse were assessed 9 years after planting. The site differences were generally expressed more strongly in the GF population. Estimated genetic parameters were mostly similar for the two breeds, except that genotypic correlation between DBH and DEN was apparently zero in the HD population. Estimated broad-sense heritabilities (H 2 ) were generally markedly higher than narrow-sense heritability estimates (h 2 ), except with DEN. Estimated between-site type-B clonal genotypic correlations were generally high (>0.8) for wood properties. Overall, DBH showed adverse genetic correlations with wood properties. The Elite/Breed strategy appeared to be helpful in combating adverse genetic correlations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".