MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101247104 · doi:10.1139/x06-243

Genetic variation of growth rhythm traits in the limits of a latitudinal cline in Scots pine

2007· article· en· W2101247104 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eduardo Notivol, María Rosario García‐Gil, Ricardo Alı́a, Outi Savolainen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCline (biology)Scots pineBiologyGenetic variationRange (aeronautics)PopulationAdaptation (eye)EcologyPinus <genus>BotanyDemographyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) has the widest distribution of pine species and the populations are locally adapted to very different environmental conditions. Adaptive traits such as those related to growth are optimal for understanding adaptation of populations to local conditions in widely distributed forest species. A study of the timing of growth during the first growing period of families in four populations from the latitudinal limits of the distribution range was conducted. Individual growth curves were fitted, and a set of variables related to growth rhythm and timing of budset was obtained for genetic analyses. Pooled heritabilities across populations were very high for most of the traits (0.43–1.09), and population differentiation for growth variables showed high values as well (Q ST = 0.19–0.71). Phenotypic correlations were higher than genetic ones, and most of them were positives. Even no general patterns of additive variances were found, the high additive genetic variance obtained (14% ± 8%, mean ± SE) suggests that additive genetic variance is not the limiting factor for adaptation to a new optimum within much of the range for these traits. Changes in means, additive genetic variances, and additive genetic coefficient of variation by population are also discussed.

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)0.004
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 score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations55
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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