Clonal and annual variation of flower production and composition of gamete gene pool in a clonal seed orchard of<i>Pinus densiflora</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The numbers of female and male strobili were assessed for 99 clones in a Pinus densiflora Sieb. et Zucc. seed orchard for four consecutive years. The data showed that differences for the production of both female and male strobili among clones were very large and statistically significant for all years examined. The most abundant quartile of clones produced 48.1 and 37.3% of the total female and male strobili, respectively, averaged over the 4-year period. Differences in female strobilus production among clones were more variable than in male. Pearson's correlations between years for flower production were positive for all combinations of years. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between years with moderate female flowers were highly significant. Both correlations between female and male flowers were moderate and positive for all 4 years. Broad-sense heritabilities for flower production on an individual ramet basis varied from 0.19 to 0.41, while those on a clone-mean basis were much higher, from 0.57 to 0.80. Maleness index showed that sexual symmetry in good and poor flower years deviated more from the ideal panmictic situation than that in intermediate years. Parental balance curves showed that orchard clones contributed more equally to the seed crop when flower production was moderate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".