Mega‐environment analysis and breeding for specific adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mega‐environment (ME) analysis is analysis of multi‐year, multi‐location crop variety trial data conducted in a target region of a crop to understand the magnitude and nature of genotype‐by‐environment interaction (GE) of the crop in the region. If repeatable GE patterns are identified, then the target region must be divided into subregions or MEs. Breeding and utilizing ME‐specific cultivars will convert the repeatable GE into genotypic main effect (G) within ME, thereby improving heritability (selection reliability) and selection gain and maximize regional and overall productivity. If no repeatable GE is found, then the target region must be treated as a single ME and the GE must be accommodated by testing adequately, that is, at a sufficient number of locations in a sufficient number of years. This paper presents a theoretical framework of ME analysis, describes graphical tools to reveal the which‐won‐where patterns in a genotype‐by‐environment dataset, and demonstrates LG (location‐grouping) biplot analysis for revealing repeatable GE patterns and delineating MEs. The concept of G + GE or GGE, that is, GE relative to G, is emphasized. It is the relative GE that is the basis for ME analysis and breeding for specific adaptation; absolute magnitude of GE has little relevance for these purposes. Breeding ME‐specific oat cultivars in Canada is demonstrated with a real‐world example.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".