Evaluation of the performance of sorghum genotypes using GGE biplot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gasura, E., Setimela, P. S. and Souta, C. M. 2015. Evaluation of the performance of sorghum genotypes using GGE biplot. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 1205–1214. In spite of sorghum's drought tolerance, it is largely affected by genotype×environment interaction (GE), making it difficult and expensive to select and recommend new sorghum genotypes for different environments. The objectives of this study were to examine the nature of GE for sorghum grain yield, to identify superior sorghum genotypes for sorghum production environments and determine ideal testing locations for future breeding activities in Zimbabwe. The grain yield of 20 sorghum genotypes from Seed Co. Pvt. Ltd. were evaluated for 2 yr (2011/2012 and 2012/2013 cropping seasons) at five locations in different agro-ecological zones of Zimbabwe. Combined analyses of variance showed significant differences for genotypes (P<0.01), environments (P<0.001) and genotype×location (P<0.01). Genotype×environment variance component was seven times greater than that of genotypes. Genotype×environment interaction was attributed to the variability in the predictable biotic and abiotic factors associated with the different locations. The genotype main effect plus GE biplot showed that the experimental sorghum genotypes W07, W09, W05, G06 and OP46 were high yielding and stable, and possessed other desirable agronomic traits. The most discriminating and representative location was Rattray Arnold Research Station.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".