Distribution of genetic variation in five coppice growth traits among natural populations of seven North American willow (<i>Salix</i>) species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic variation and population structure in biomass yield and coppice growth traits were assessed in seven native North American willow species (Salix amygdaloides (AMY), Salix bebbiana (BEB), Salix discolor (DIS), Salix eriocephala (ERI), Salix humilis (HUM), Salix interior (INT), and Salix nigra (NIG)) established together in common-garden field tests on two sites. Differences in biomass yield, coppice stem number, and average single-stem mass were significant at the site, species, population, and genotype (clonal) levels. There were also species × site interactions. Analyses of variance components for these traits showed that only 3%–5% of the total variation in these traits was due to site differences, whereas genetic variation at the species, population, and genotype levels accounted for approximately 10%–39%, 5%–13%, and 12%–23%, respectively. Populations were a significant source of variation in some willow species (e.g., AMY, DIS, ERI, and INT) but not in other species. Tree willows were less prolific in stem sprout production than shrub willows, and ERI coppices produced by far the highest number of stem sprouts per coppice. This multispecies investigation demonstrated strong species and clonal differences, but variation among populations within a species, although significant, was relatively small, indicating that major growth and yield gains can be made through proper species selection and clonal selection within local populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".