Phenotypic variation in growth and biomass distribution for two advanced-generation pedigrees of hybrid poplar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the genetic control of biomass distribution in trees, phenotypic variation in the distribution of dry mass to stems, branches, leaves, coarse roots, and fine roots was examined in two hybrid poplar (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & A. Gray (T) × Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh. (D)) families grown under field conditions. Family 331 was an inbred F 2 (TD × TD) pedigree, whereas family 13 was an outbred backcross BC 1 (TD × D) pedigree. Fractional distribution of total whole-tree biomass to shoots and roots during their establishment year averaged (±SD) 0.62 ± 0.09 and 0.38 ± 0.09, respectively, across 247 genotypes in family 331, and 0.57 ± 0.06 and 0.43 ± 0.06, respectively, across 160 genotypes in family 13. In contrast, fractional distribution of total biomass in 2-year-old trees was 0.79 ± 0.04 to shoots and 0.21 ± 0.04 to roots. Allometric analysis indicated that as trees increased in age, biomass was preferentially distributed to stems and branches, whereas distribution to roots declined. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis for family 13 indicated 31 QTL (likelihood of odds >2.5) for traits measured. The percent phenotypic variation explained by any single QTL ranged from 7.5% to 18.3% and averaged 11.2% across all QTL. These results show that aboveground and belowground patterns of biomass distribution are under genetic control. This finding has wide-ranging implications for carbon sequestration, phytoremediation, and basic biological research in trees.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".