Genetic Variation among Canada Wildrye Accessions from Midwest USA Remnant Prairies for Biomass Yield and other Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis L.) and Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L.), which are native to the USA, were collected from remnant Midwest prairies. The objectives of this study were to determine the genetic variability among the collected accessions for biomass yield and other traits, determine the extent of genotype × environment interactions for these traits across Midwest environments, and to determine the relationship between the geographical location of the collection site and evaluation sites for these accessions for plant biomass yield which can be used as a measure of adaptation. Seed collected from six Midwest states was bulked by collection site to form individual accessions. Space transplanted evaluation nurseries were established at Mead, NE, Ames, IA, and West Lafayette, IN, and accessions were evaluated on a plot basis for 2 yr. There was significant genetic variation among accessions for post‐heading forage yield, heading date, height, pre‐heading in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and crude protein (CP) concentration, and post‐heading CP concentration. Strain × location (S × L) interaction effects were only significant for post‐heading IVDMD and height indicating that for the other traits, the relative ranking of the strains was similar at all three locations over the two evaluation years. Regression analyses of the effect of distance of the collection site from the evaluation site (direct, east or west, and north or south) on biomass yield were largely nonsignificant or had very low R2 values. These regression results along with the nonsignificant S × L effects from the analysis of variance indicate that longitudinal or latitudinal adaptation gradients for plant biomass yield are lacking for Canada wildrye accessions from Midwest prairies. All but five of the Canada wildrye accessions had higher biomass yield than the only released cultivar, Mandan, indicating that this germplasm can be used to develop improved cultivars that should be adapted to the region represented by the collection and evaluation sites.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".