Poplar breeding and testing strategies in the north-central U.S.: Demonstration of potential yield and consideration of future research needs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present results from a Populus Regional Testing Program that has been conducted in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan over the past six years. Our objectives have been to: 1) identify highly productive, disease resistant intra- and inter-specific clonal selections and 2) understand patterns of genotype × environment interactions within the region that would, logically, govern commercial deployment of new clones. Clones were developed by breeding and selection programs at the University of Illinois, Iowa State University, University of Minnesota, and the USDA Forest Service for experiments established in 1995. We report results of analyses of variance and principal component analyses of tree diameters and estimated above-ground biomass that demonstrate significant genotype main effects and significant genotype × environment interactions. Maximum mean annual above-ground biomass increments have surpassed 16 Mg ha −1 y −1 , exceeding previously reported yields of poplars grown under similar conditions in the north-central U.S. We also discuss the breeding and selection of poplars in general with specific attention to regional research needs. Key words: Populus, biomass, multi-trait selection, genotype, genotype × environment interaction
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it