Genotype × Environment Interaction and Stability Analysis for Watermelon Fruit Yield in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major breeding objectives for watermelon ( Citrullus lanatus [Thumb.] Matsum & Nakai) is improved fruit yield. High yielding genotypes have been identified, so we measured their stability for fruit yield and yield components over diverse environments. The objectives of this study were to (i) evaluate the yield of watermelon genotypes over years and locations, (ii) identify genotypes with high stability for yield, and (iii) measure the correlations among univariate and multivariate stability statistics. A diverse set of 40 genotypes was evaluated over 3 yr (2009, 2010, and 2011) and eight locations across the southern United States in replicated trials. Yield traits were evaluated over multiple harvests, and measured as marketable yield, fruit count, percentage cull fruit, percentage early fruit, and fruit size. There were strong effects of environment as well as genotype × environment interaction (G×E) on watermelon yield traits. Based on multiple stability measures, genotypes were classified as stable or unstable for yield. There was an advantage of hybrids over inbreds for yield components in both performance and responsiveness to favorable environments. Cultivars Big Crimson and Legacy are inbred lines with high yield and stability. A significant ( P < 0.001) and positive correlation was measured for Shukla's stability variance (σ i 2 ), Shukla's squared hat ( ŝ i 2 ), Wricke's ecovalence ( W i ), and deviation from regression ( S 2 d ) for all the traits evaluated in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".