Using Living Germplasm Collections to Characterize, Improve, and Conserve Woody Perennials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Woody perennial plants make up nearly half of plant diversity and represent one‐third of the world's major crop species, yet effective strategies to maintain and preserve these important species require additional attention. The majority of conservation programs focus on seed storage; however, seeds of many woody perennial plants are difficult to maintain in seed banks because they are recalcitrant. In addition, most woody perennial crops are clonally propagated, and seed‐based conservation efforts miss clonal lineages that form the foundation of woody perennial agriculture. Woody crops are often best maintained as living collections, but these compose only 5.8% of ex situ germplasm collections. Living germplasm collections are critical resources for exploring and conserving genetic and phenotypic diversity and provide novel material for breeding efforts. In this review, we examine how living germplasm collections can be used for for phenotypic description, genetic characterization, and plant breeding. Lastly, we outline the importance of conserving these valuable resources and highlight the need for conservation strategies that are appropriately designed for woody perennial species.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it