Early rooting of dormant hardwood cuttings of<i>Populus</i>: analysis of quantitative genetics and genotype × environment interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rooting of hardwood cuttings is under strong genetic control, although genotype × environment interactions affect selection of promising genotypes. Our objectives were (1) to assess the variation in rooting ability among 21 Populus clones and (2) to examine genotype × environment interactions to refine clonal recommendations. The clones belonged to five genomic groups ((Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray × Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.) × P. deltoides 'BC'; P. deltoides 'D'; P. deltoides × Populus maximowiczii A. Henry 'DM'; P. deltoides × Populus nigra L. 'DN'; and P. nigra × P. maximowiczii 'NM'). Cuttings, 20 cm long, were planted in Iowa and Minnesota in randomized complete blocks at 1.2 m × 2.4 m spacing, across three planting dates during 2001 and 2002. We measured nine belowground and aboveground traits from harvested cuttings after 14 days of growth. Percent rooting ranged from 22% to 86%. Broad-sense heritability for root and top dry mass ranged from 0.09 to 0.11 and 0.31 to 0.38, respectively. There were genotype × environment interactions for most traits, with belowground growing degree-days accounting for >54% of environmental variation. Clonal rooting was stable, except at Westport, Minnesota, during 2002, when root growth was relatively poor.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".