Breeding for adaptation to climate change: genomic selection for drought response in a white spruce multi‐site polycross test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With climate change, increasingly intense and frequent drought episodes will be affecting water availability for boreal tree species, prompting tree breeders and forest managers to consider adaptation to drought stress as a priority in their reforestation efforts. We used a 19‐year‐old polycross progeny test of the model conifer white spruce ( Picea glauca ) replicated on two sites affected by distinct drought episodes at different ages to estimate the genetic control and the potential for improvement of drought response in addition to conventional cumulative growth and wood quality traits. Drought response components were measured from dendrochronological signatures matching drought episodes in wood ring increment cores. We found that trees with more vigorous growth during their lifespan resisted better during the current year of a drought episode when the drought had more severe effects. Phenotypic data were also analyzed using genomic prediction (GBLUP) relying on the genomic relationship matrix of multi‐locus gene SNP marker information, and conventional analysis (ABLUP) based on validated pedigree information. The accuracy of predicted breeding values for drought response components was marginally lower than that for conventional traits and comparable between GBLUP and ABLUP. Genetic correlations were generally low and nonsignificant between drought response components and conventional traits, except for resistance which was positively correlated to tree height. Heritability estimates for the components of drought response were slightly lower than for conventional traits, but similar single‐trait genetic gains could be obtained. Multi‐trait genomic selection simulations indicated that it was possible to improve simultaneously for all traits on both sites while sacrificing little on gain in tree height. In a context of rapid climate change, our results suggest that with careful phenotypic assessment, drought response may be considered in multi‐trait improvement of white spruce, with accelerated screening of large numbers of candidates and selection at young age with genomic selection.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".