MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579156703 · doi:10.5539/jas.v9n2p188

Analysis of Genotype by Environment Interaction of Improved Pearl Millet for Grain Yield and Rust Resistance

2017· article· en· W2579156703 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geofrey Lubadde, P. Tongoona, John Derera, Julia Sibiya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiplotRust (programming language)Grain yieldAgronomyAnthesisBiologyGene–environment interactionGenotypePearlYield (engineering)Resistance (ecology)AridPhakopsora pachyrhiziInteractionCultivarGeographyEcologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pearl millet is grown by inhabitants of the semi-arid zones. Due to the unpredictable climatic conditions the genotype-by-environment interaction (GEI) makes it hard to select genotypes adapted to such conditions. The study objectives therefore were to analyse the patterns of GEI and to identify superior genotypes for grain yield and rust resistance. Seventy six genotypes were planted in four environments in 4×19 alpha design with two replications. The ANOVA results showed that main effects of environments were significant (p ≤ 0.05) for grain yield and highly significant (p ≤ 0.001) for rust resistance while the main effects of the genotypes and their interactions with environments were also important for grain yield and rust severity at 50% physiological maturity. The GGE biplot analysis revealed that environments associated with more rains received during vegetative phase performed better than those receiving more rains during post-anthesis phase. The winner in the best environment for grain yield was ICMV3771×SDMV96053 while Shibe×CIVT9206 and Shibe×GGB8735 were the best for rust resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207