Spatial analysis methods for forest genetic trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial analysis, using separable autoregressive processes of residuals, is increasingly used in agricultural variety yield trial analysis. Interpretation of the sample variogram has become a tool for the detection of global trend and "extraneous" variation aligned with trial rows and columns. We applied this methodology to five selected forest genetic trials using an individual tree additive genetic model. We compared the base design model with post-blocking, a first-order autoregressive model of residuals (AR1), that model with an independent error term (AR1η), a combined base and autoregressive model, an autoregressive model only within replicates and an autoregressive model applied at the plot level. Post-blocking gave substantial improvements in log-likelihood over the base model, but the AR1η model was even better. The independent error term was necessary with the individual tree additive genetic model to avoid substantial positive bias in estimates of additive genetic variance in the AR1 model and blurred patterns of variation. With the combined model, the design effects were eliminated, or their significance was greatly reduced. Applying the AR1η model to individual trees was better than applying it at the plot level or applying it on a replicate-by-replicate basis. The relative improvements achieved in genetic response to selection did not exceed 6%. Examination of the spatial distribution of the residuals and the variogram of the residuals allowed the identification of the spatial patterns present. While additional significant terms could be fitted to model some of the spatial patterns and stationary variograms were attained in some instances, this resulted in only marginal increases in genetic gain. Use of a combined model is recommended to enable improved analysis of experimental data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".