MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114957687 · doi:10.1139/x11-116

Highly heritable heartwood properties of Scots pine: possibilities for selective seed harvest in seed orchards

2011· article· en· W2114957687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jouni Partanen, Anni Harju, Martti Venäläinen, Katri Kärkkäinen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTekes
KeywordsScots pineReforestationSeed orchardBiologyAbiotic componentHorticulturePinus <genus>BotanyAbiotic stressAgroforestryGeneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stilbenes pinosylvin (PS) and its monomethyl ether (PSM) provide natural decay resistance to Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) heartwood timber. For growing trees, the inducible stilbene production serves as a defence against biotic and abiotic stresses. To improve the potential of reforestation material to produce stilbenes, we assessed the possibilities of selective harvesting from seed orchards. Half-sib progenies growing in a field trial and their grafted mothers in seed orchards were surveyed for several chemical and dimensional heartwood characteristics. The correlations between the clonal means of grafted mothers and the family means of their progenies were high for concentration of PS (r = 0.83, p = 0.000) and PSM (r = 0.60, p = 0.010) and for heartwood density (r = 0.72, p = 0.001). For these traits, the narrow-sense heritabilities (h 2 ) estimated from the progeny trial and the broad-sense heritabilities (H 2 ) in seed orchards were high as well. For the concentration of PS, both h 2 (0.67) and H 2 (0.81) showed the highest values of any trait. The selective collection of Scots pine seed from seed orchards is a promising way to obtain seedlings that possess genetic potential for active defence and to produce high-quality heartwood as mature 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 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)0.002
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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207