The importance of dominance and genotype-by-environment interactions on grain yield variation in a large-scale public cooperative maize experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-dimensional and high-throughput genomic, field performance, and environmental data are becoming increasingly available to crop breeding programs, and their integration can facilitate genomic prediction within and across environments and provide insights into the genetic architecture of complex traits and the nature of genotype-by-environment interactions. To partition trait variation into additive and dominance (main effect) genetic and corresponding genetic-by-environment variances, and to identify specific environmental factors that influence genotype-by-environment interactions, we curated and analyzed genotypic and phenotypic data on 1918 maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids and environmental data from 65 testing environments. For grain yield, dominance variance was similar in magnitude to additive variance, and genetic-by-environment variances were more important than genetic main effect variances. Models involving both additive and dominance relationships best fit the data and modeling unique genetic covariances among all environments provided the best characterization of the genotype-by-environment interaction patterns. Similarity of relative hybrid performance among environments was modeled as a function of underlying weather variables, permitting identification of weather covariates driving correlations of genetic effects across environments. The resulting models can be used for genomic prediction of mean hybrid performance across populations of environments tested or for environment-specific predictions. These results can also guide efforts to incorporate high-throughput environmental data into genomic prediction models and predict values in new environments characterized with the same environmental characteristics.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".