Genomic prediction of switchgrass winter survivorship across diverse lowland populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the North-Central United States, lowland ecotype switchgrass can increase yield by up to 50% compared with locally adapted but early flowering cultivars. However, lowland ecotypes are not winter tolerant. The mechanism for winter damage is unknown but previously has been associated with late flowering time. This study investigated heading date (measured for two years) and winter survivorship (measured for three years) in a multi-generation population generated from two winter-hardy lowland individuals and diverse southern lowland populations. Sequencing data (311,776 markers) from 1,306 individuals were used to evaluate genome-wide trait prediction through cross-validation and progeny prediction (n = 52). Genetic variance for heading date and winter survivorship was additive with high narrow-sense heritability (0.64 and 0.71, respectively) and reliability (0.68 and 0.76, respectively). The initial negative correlation between winter survivorship and heading date degraded across generations (F1r = -0.43, pseudo-F2r = -0.28, pseudo-F2 progeny r = -0.15). Within-family predictive ability was moderately high for heading date and winter survivorship (0.53 and 0.52, respectively). A multi-trait model did not improve predictive ability for either trait. Progeny predictive ability was 0.71 for winter survivorship and 0.53 for heading date. These results suggest that lowland ecotype populations can obtain sufficient survival rates in the northern United States with two or three cycles of effective selection. Despite accurate genomic prediction, naturally occurring winter mortality successfully isolated winter tolerant genotypes and appears to be an efficient method to develop high-yielding, cold-tolerant switchgrass cultivars.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".