MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205439685 · doi:10.1515/sg-2010-0018

Genetic Parameters for Bud Flushing and Growth Characteristics of White Spruce Seedlings

2010· article· en· W2205439685 on OpenAlexafffund
Deogratias M. Rweyongeza, Francis C. Yeh, N. K. Dhir

Bibliographic record

VenueSilvae genetica/Silvae Genetica · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsHeritabilitySeedlingBiologyRandomized block designTree breedingGrowing seasonFlushingBlack spruceHorticultureGenetic correlationGerminationGenetic gainSeed orchardBotanyAnimal scienceAgronomyGenetic variationWoody plantEcologyTaiga

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We estimated heritabilities and correlations for bud flushing and growth traits of white spruce seedlings, and the correlations of seedling traits with 10- and 11- year height of the same families in the field. The seedling greenhouse experiment had a randomized complete block design with 30 replications, 58 open-pollinated families and single-tree plots. Individual tree heritability (h i 2 ) was 0.78 and 0.54 for 18 (H18) and 36 (H36)-week total height, respectively. The corresponding heritabilities for family means (h f 2 ) were 0.91 and 0.82. For root collar diameter, hi 2 were respectively, 0.61 and 0.22 at 24 and 54 weeks from germination. The corresponding h f 2 were 0.87 and 0.55. Heritability for bud flushing ranged from 0.13 to 0.46 (h i 2 ) and 0.44 to 0.83 (hf 2). The genetic correlation (r a ) between H18 and H36 was 0.70 and that of D24 and D54 was 0.89, indicating a substantial change in family ranking in one growing season. The type B genetic correlation for H18 with field heights ranged from 0.22 to 0.30. Type B genetic correlations of field height with all other seedling traits were very low and largely negative. It can be concluded that: (1) age-age correlation of seedling height can be expected to decline drastically even in a stable environment of the greenhouse, (2) heritability for growth potential is meaningful when estimated on cumulative growth not on individual annual growth increments that are susceptible to short-term environmental variation, (3) dates of bud flushing did not influence variation in height and root collar diameter, and (4) field growth potential is better predicted by greenhouse growth potential than other morphological and shoot phenological traits.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSilvae genetica/Silvae GeneticaSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207