MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011003690 · doi:10.1139/x05-134

Efficiency of early selection for rotation-aged growth and wood density traits in <i>Pinus radiata</i>

2005· article· en· W2011003690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li Li, Harry X. Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationNanjing UniversityNanjing Forestry University
KeywordsHeritabilityDiameter at breast heightBiologyPinus radiataRadiataGenetic correlationSowingBotanyHorticultureAnimal scienceGenetic variationEvolutionary biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 1097 cross-sectional wood disks from breast height were sampled from two rotation-aged (27 and 31 years from planting) genetic trials of radiata pine (Pinus radiata D. Don) in Australia to estimate the genetic correlation between early and rotation-aged growth and wood quality traits and the efficiency of early selection. Annual growth-ring width and density, diameter at breast height (DBH), and area-weighted density (AD) from 30 open-pollinated families were measured using X-ray densitometry. Genotype × site interactions were not significant for density and growth traits. Ring density increased steadily from the pith to cambial age 14, and then density had little change in the following years. For AD, the family and individual heritability estimates were about 0.60 and 0.30 after the first 2 years. For DBH, family and individual narrow-sense heritability estimates increased steadily after the first 4 years, and family heritability increased to 0.7 at a cambial age of 11 and had little change thereafter. Individual heritability estimate increased to 0.4 at cambial age 14 and was similar for the later ages. Beyond a cambial age of 5 years, there were strong negative genetic correlations of around –0.80 between AD and DBH. Age–age genetic correlations for AD were high and reached 0.80 and above after cambial age 3. Age–age genetic correlations for DBH were similar to AD, except the first two years. The most efficient early selection year was between ages 4 and 6 years after planting for AD, and between ages 8 and 11 years for DBH.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations69
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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