Genotype × trial interaction and stability across sites in 11 combined provenance and clone experiments with<i>Picea abies</i>in Denmark and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1997, eleven combined Picea abies (L.) Karst. provenance and clone trials were assessed in two series, with identical genetic constitution and design, in locations ranging from western Denmark to central Sweden, after 14 and 11 years, respectively. The phenotypic variation was larger for mixtures of 24 clones than for seedlings in one series, although 10 times more genotypes were represented amongst the seedlings. This was explained by random C-effects due to propagation. Provenances of seedlings and clone mixtures were fairly stable across sites. Statistically significant clone × trial interaction of growth traits were of the same magnitude as the clonal effects. The median genotypic correlation across sites for total height growth was 0.54. Ecovalence values for growth indicated that most clones contributed about equally to the interaction, with a tendency for clones with early bud break to give a larger contribution. Damage caused by late spring frost was assumed to be a main cause of genotype × environment interaction. Since interactions relatively were more pronounced for growth increment than for the latest height, the interaction seems to increase with age. Cluster analysis based on genotypic correlations between pairs of trials gave a very scattered geographic pattern of the test sites. The results did not justify any suggestions for changes in the P. abies breeding strategy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".