Clonal-row versus random seed orchard designs: interior spruce mating system evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mating system pattern (selfing or outcrossing and correlated matings levels) comparisons between two interior spruce seed orchard designs (clonal-row and random) managed under intensive crown and pollen management were conducted. Crown manipulation consisted of tree topping and branch pruning, while pollen management involved multiple supplemental mass-pollination applications during peak seed-cone reproductive receptivity and pollen agitation using helicopters. Significant differences between orchards’ multilocus outcrossing rate estimates were observed, and both estimates significantly departed from complete outcrossing (t = 1.0). Clonal arrangements in the clonal-row design permitted higher chances for selfing (t = 0.948) in comparison with those of the random design (t = 0.989). Intensive pollen management, while effective, still produced a minor component of selfing. Both orchard designs produced similar individual tree's outcrossing rate trends with the majority showing high outcrossing, while few individuals showed high selfing propensity. Estimates of correlated mating varied substantially between the two seed orchard designs with 9.3% and 4.3% for the clonal-row and random seed orchards, respectively. While small but significant differences in the genetic quality of the seed crops were observed between the two orchard designs, the establishment of clonal-row seed orchards should be given serious considerations specifically under committed pollen and crown management. The ease of crop and orchard management in the clonal-row design outweighs the observed differences in the seed crop genetic quality. A slight modification to the clonal-row design is proposed and is expected to reduce the observed minor genetic quality differences between the two orchard designs.
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".