Genetic parameters and provenenance variation of <i>Pinus caribaea</i> var. <i>hondurensis</i> in 48 international trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 23 provenances or sources of Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis (Sénécl) Barr. et Golf. were tested in 48 provenanceprogeny trials in Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela. In Brazil and Venezuela, 8-year heights were approximately 12 m, while in Colombia, mean 8-year height was less than 8 m. The growth rates of the unimproved material correspond approximately to volumes of 1415 m3·ha1·year1 of wood on sites in Brazil and Venezuela, and 45 m3·ha1·year1 in Colombia. Provenances had similar growth rankings in the different countries, with a type-B provenance correlation of 0.63. The best native provenances were Limón and Guanaja, Honduras. Improved first-generation sources from Queensland, Australia and Zululand, South Africa, were 512% better than the mean of the unimproved provenances, depending on country where planted. Mean single-site heritability for volume growth is approximately 0.18. Potential genetic gain for volume at 8 years from selection within provenance is around 30%. Foxtailing is also under moderate genetic control with heritability around 0.15. Genotype × environment interaction for volume growth is generally higher for tests located in different countries than in the same countries. Selection for age-8 volume using age-5 data would be 93% as effective as selection at age 8.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".