MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119578049 · doi:10.1139/x03-132

Maternal and carryover effects on early growth of <i>Eucalyptus globulus</i>

2003· article· en· W2119578049 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gustavo Lopez, BM Potts, René E. Vaillancourt, Luis A. Apiolaza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaUniversity of Tasmania
KeywordsDiallel crossBiologyGerminationMaternal effectEucalyptus globulusGenetic variationReciprocal crossHorticultureOffspringEucalyptusBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal and nonmaternal reciprocal effects were compared with nuclear genetic and carryover effects using a diallel mating amongst eight Eucalyptus globulus Labill. wild parents from northeastern and southern Tasmania races. Seed mass exhibited a significant maternal effect, increasing seed germinative capacity but not germination rate. After accounting for variation in seed mass, both germinative capacity and germination rate exhibited significant reciprocal effects, but these were non maternal in origin. Rapid germination and large seeds resulted in significantly larger seedlings in the nursery, but these carryover effects diminished with age. In contrast, the expression of genetic effects increased with age. Significant additive genetic variation was detected for growth by age 3 years and significant reciprocal differences were detected at the race level after 2 years in field trials. If common, such reciprocal effects could bias genetic parameters and impact on the choice of cross-direction in deployment programs. Failure to account for carryover effects in genetic analyses may inflate estimates of genetic variation for growth during early stages of the life cycle.

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)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations77
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207