Genetic analysis of early field growth of loblolly pine clones and seedlings from the same full-sib families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field trials established with clones and seedlings from the same families provide an opportunity for comparing full-sib family performance across propagule types. More than 1200 different clones together with over 14 000 zygotic seedlings from the same 61 full-sib families of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) were tested on multiple sites across Florida and Georgia. The genetic variance associated with several early growth traits partitioned differently depending on propagule type. Most of the genetic variance associated with growth in the clonal population was additive, while the estimate of dominance in the seedling population was greater than estimates of dominance in the clonal population, based on single-site analyses. Apparently, a lack of randomization of the seedlings prior to field establishment caused full-sib families to appear more different, inflating estimates of dominance genetic variance. Parental and full-sib family ranks were stable regardless of propagule type as indicated by type B genetic correlations. In the clonal population, little genotype × environment interaction was observed across sites at the parental, family, and clonal levels for all traits. The high genetic correlations between propagule types provide further assurance that selections made through traditional tree-improvement activities for recurrent selection for general combining ability in seedling trials can also be used successfully for breeding families to test in a clonal forestry program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".