MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971733728 · doi:10.1139/x07-233

Genetic variation in the diameter–height relationship in Scots pine (<i>Pinus sylvestris</i>)

2008· article· en· W1971733728 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johan Kroon, Bengt Andersson, T. J. Mullin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScots pineHeritabilityDiameter at breast heightMathematicsStatisticsCoefficient of variationPinus <genus>CovariateGenetic gainDiallel crossBiologyAnimal scienceGenetic variationMicrositeSelection (genetic algorithm)BotanySeedlingEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic parameters were estimated for the diameter–height (d-h) relationship and three other tree stem-form characteristics (total height, breast height diameter, and total tree volume) for data from 10 diallel progeny trials of Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.), at about 30 years of age in Sweden. Linear mixed models were fit to the data, where adjustments for intertree competition and microsite heterogeneity were made by means of covariates in a nearest-neighbour analysis. The d-h relationship was analyzed with a covariate (tree height) adjusted model of diameter. Average estimates of the additive coefficient of variation and narrow-sense heritability for the d-h relationship were 7.4% and 0.22, respectively. Estimates of dominance were comparatively small (average dominance: phenotypic variance ratio of 0.04). The results indicate that there is scope to modify the d-h relationship by selection and breeding. Additive genetic correlations between the d-h relationship and height were negative, with a mean of –0.62. Selection for height would thus result in stems that are more slender than average, suggesting that tall trees allocate relatively more resources to height growth than to diameter growth. Selection based on height alone will negatively affect volume gain.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207