The impact of spatial heterogeneity on selection: a case study on <i>Pinus pinaster</i> breeding seedling orchards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although failure to account for spatial autocorrelation has been dramatic in some forest progeny trials, little attention has been paid to how this issue may affect selections within the trials. The effects of spatial autocorrelation of height growth on the estimation of genetic gain and on the spatial distribution of the selected trees were studied in four Pinus pinaster Ait. progeny trials that were rogued using different selection methods and intensities. When selections are based on unadjusted original values, selected trees tend to be located in the best microsites and are unlikely to be the most genetically superior. This resulted in a loss of genetic gain that varied between 10% and 20% and sometimes exceeded 30%. Differences in the loss of gain among different selection methods and intensities were minor and followed no clear pattern. Selecting on the basis of a conventional model resulted in spatial patterns of the retained trees that were clearly aggregated in all cases. However, selections based on spatially adjusted data resulted in random spatial patterns, except with family selection because of the use of multiple-tree plots. Because clumping of the retained trees may seriously affect the quantity and quality of the seed crop, breeders are strongly encouraged to use appropriate spatial models for roguing breeding seedling orchards.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".