MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186342275 · doi:10.1111/pbr.12950

Genetic selection for nonstructural carbohydrates and its impact on other nutritive attributes of alfalfa (<i>Medicago sativa</i>) forage

2021· article· en· W3186342275 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Annie Claessens, Marie Bipfubusa, Caroline Chouinard‐Michaud, Annick Bertrand, Gaëtan F. Tremblay, Yves Castonguay, Gilles Bélanger, R. Berthiaume, Guy Allard

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsMedicago sativaBiologyForageSelection (genetic algorithm)AgronomyMedicagoBotanyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High concentration of nonstructural carbohydrates (NSC) in forages improves ruminant N utilization and performance. The present study evaluated the direct and indirect effects of one cycle of divergent phenotypic selection for NSC in alfalfa along with the diurnal and seasonal stability of the trait. For this purpose, divergent NSC populations were developed (NSC+ and NSC−) and two field trials were established in Quebec, Canada. Forage samples were collected twice a day (morning and afternoon) and three times a year (spring, summer and autumn) and analysed for NSC, crude protein (CP), fibre concentration, digestibility and yield. The NSC+ population maintained greater NSC concentrations than the NSC− population over 2 establishment years (+18%, 129 vs. 109 g/kg) and three production years (+8%, 126 vs. 116 g/kg). Time of cutting and period of harvest had significant effects on alfalfa NSC concentration and other nutritive attributes, but they did not affect the response to selection for NSC concentration. Phenotypic selection for NSC concentration can therefore be used in a recurrent phenotypic selection approach to improve alfalfa nutritive value.

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 score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207