Genetic Variation of Growth Traits and Genotype-by-Environment Interactions in Clones of Catalpa bungei and Catalpa fargesii f. duclouxii
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clones of Catalpa bungei and Catalpa fargesii f. duclouxii were studied over several years in central China to explore genetic variation in growth traits and to identify clones of high wood yield and high stability. The genetic parameters for height, diameter at breast height (DBH), and stem volume of clones, were estimated. The effect of clone × year on the increment of stem volume in the two species was analyzed by genotype and genotype × environment (GGE) biplot methods. Significant differences in growth traits among clones and between species were found. The growth of C. bungei exceeded that of C. fargesii f. duclouxii after 4 years. Furthermore, from the 5th year, the repeatability and genetic variation coefficient (GCV) of the C. bungei clones were higher than those of the C. fargesii f. duclouxii clones in most cases. The phenotypic variation coefficient (PCV) of the C. fargesii f. duclouxii clones was significantly lower than that of the C. bungei clones. The repeatability of stem volume was intermediate or high in the two species. ANOVA revealed significant effects of the clone by year interaction in these two species. GGE biplot analysis revealed that wood yield and stability were largely independent in C. bungei; clones 22-03, 19-27, and 20-01 were the optimal clones in this species. In contrast, the optimal clones 63 and 128 of C. fargesii f. duclouxii combined the desired characteristics of high yield and high stability. In conclusion, our results indicated that the height and stem volume of C. bungei was under strong genetic control, whereas that of C. fargesii f. duclouxii was influenced by the environment more than by genetic effects. Genetic improvement by clone selection can be expected to be effective, as the repeatability of stem volume was high. Francis and Kannenberg’s method and GGE biplot analysis were used in combination to evaluate the clones. C. bungei clone 22-03 and C. fargesii f. duclouxii clones 63 and 128 were identified as the optimal clones, which exhibited both a high increment of stem volume and high stability.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".