A Quantitative Framework for Flower Phenotyping in Cultivated Carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most important breeding goals in ornamental crops are plant appearance and flower characteristics where selection is visually performed on direct offspring of crossings. We developed an image analysis toolbox for the acquisition of flower and petal images from cultivated carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) that was validated by a detailed analysis of flower and petal size and shape in 78 commercial cultivars of D. caryophyllus, including 55 standard, 22 spray and 1 pot carnation cultivars. Correlation analyses allowed us to reduce the number of parameters accounting for the observed variation in flower and petal morphology. Convexity was used as a descriptor for the level of serration in flowers and petals. We used a landmark-based approach that allowed us to identify eight main principal components (PCs) accounting for most of the variance observed in petal shape. The effect and the strength of these PCs in standard and spray carnation cultivars are consistent with shared underlying mechanisms involved in the morphological diversification of petals in both subpopulations. Our results also indicate that neighbor-joining trees built with morphological data might infer certain phylogenetic relationships among carnation cultivars. Based on estimated broad-sense heritability values for some flower and petal features, different genetic determinants shall modulate the responses of flower and petal morphology to environmental cues in this species. We believe our image analysis toolbox could allow capturing flower variation in other species of high ornamental value.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".