Simulations of rate of genetic gain in dry bean breeding programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dry beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) are a nutrient dense legume that is consumed by developed and developing nations around the world. The progress to improve this crop has been quite steady. However, with the continued rise in global populations, there are demands to expedite genetic gains. Plant breeders have been at the forefront at increasing yields in the common bean. As breeding programs are both time consuming and resource intensive, resource allocation must be carefully considered. To assist plant breeders, computer simulations can provide useful information that may then be applied to the real world. This study evaluated multiple breeding scenarios in the common bean and involved five breeding strategies, three breeding frameworks, and four different parental population sizes. In addition, the breeding scenarios were implemented in three different traits: days to flowering, white mold tolerance, and seed yield. Results from the study reflect the complexity of breeding programs, with the optimal breeding scenario varying based on trait being selected. Relative genetic gains per cycle of up to 8.69% for seed yield could be obtained under the use of the optimal breeding scenario. Principal component analyses revealed similarity between strategies, where single seed descent and the modified pedigree method would often aggregate. As well, clusters in the direction of the Hamming distance eigenvector are a good indicator of poor performance in a strategy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".