Generating Douglas-fir Breeding Value Estimates Using Airborne Laser Scanning Derived Height and Crown Metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progeny test trials in British Columbia are essential in assessing the genetic performance via the prediction of breeding values (BVs) for target phenotypes of parent trees and their offspring. Accurate and timely collection of phenotypic data is critical for estimating BVs with confidence. Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) data have been used to measure tree height and structure across a wide range of species, ages and environments globally. Here, we analyzed a Coastal Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii (Mirb.)] progeny test trial located in British Columbia, Canada, using individual tree high-density Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) metrics and traditional ground-based phenotypic observations. Narrow-sense heritability, genetic correlations, and BVs were estimated using pedigree-based single and multi-trait linear models for 43 traits. Comparisons of genetic parameter estimates between ALS metrics and traditional ground-based measures and single- and multi-trait models were conducted based on the accuracy and precision of the estimates. BVs were estimated for two ALS models (ALSCAN and ALSACC) representing two model-building approaches and compared to a baseline model using field-measured traits. The ALSCAN model used metrics reflecting aspects of vertical distribution of biomass within trees, while ALSACC represented the most statistically accurate model. We report that the accuracy of both the ALSCAN (0.8239) and ALSACC (0.8254) model-derived BVs for mature tree height is a suitable proxy for ground-based mature tree height BVs (0.8316). Given the cost efficiency of ALS, forest geneticists should explore this technology as a viable tool to increase breeding programs’ overall efficiency and cost savings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".