Use of Crop Growth Models with Whole‐Genome Prediction: Application to a Maize Multienvironment Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High throughput genotyping, phenotyping, and envirotyping applied within plant breeding multienvironment trials (METs) provide the data foundations for selection and tackling genotype × environment interactions (GEIs) through whole‐genome prediction (WGP). Crop growth models (CGM) can be used to enable predictions for yield and other traits for different genotypes and environments within a MET if genetic variation for the influential traits and their responses to environmental variation can be incorporated into the CGM framework. Furthermore, such CGMs can be integrated with WGP to enable whole‐genome prediction with crop growth models (CGM‐WGP) through use of computational methods such as approximate Bayesian computation. We previously used simulated data sets to demonstrate proof of concept for application of the CGM‐WGP methodology to plant breeding METs. Here the CGM‐WGP methodology is applied to an empirical maize ( Zea mays L.) drought MET data set to evaluate the steps involved in reduction to practice. Positive prediction accuracy was achieved for hybrid grain yield in two drought environments for a sample of doubled haploids (DHs) from a cross. This was achieved by including genetic variation for five component traits into the CGM to enable the CGM‐WGP methodology. The five component traits were a priori considered to be important for yield variation among the maize hybrids in the two target drought environments included in the MET. Here, we discuss lessons learned while applying the CGM‐WGP methodology to the empirical data set. We also identify areas for further research to improve prediction accuracy and to advance the CGM‐WGP for a broader range of situations relevant to plant breeding.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".