Will Genomic Information Facilitate Forest Tree Breeding for Disease and Pest Resistance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest trees are beleaguered by the ever-increasing onslaught of invasive pests and pathogens, with some species in danger of functional extinction. Recent successes in developing resistant populations using traditional tree breeding assures that some of the affected species will persist in future forests. However, the sheer number of threatened species requires increases in breeding efficiency. The time is right to consider how the use of genomic resources might aid breeding efforts in the next 20 years. Any operational benefit of genomic resources will be minimal without closer collaboration between tree breeders, forest managers, and genomic researchers. We reflect here on what attributes were responsible for the success of traditional resistance breeding programs and whether advances in genomics can realistically accelerate breeding. We conclude that the use of genomics to directly advance resistance breeding efforts in the next 20 years will be limited. Major obstacles will include factors such as the undomesticated nature of most tree species, the quantitative genetic nature of resistance in many species, and the lack of adequate funding to accelerate and more fully develop genomic resources. Despite these limitations, genomic tools have potential to help increase our understanding of the nature of resistance, and the genetic variability in the host, which can aid in the deployment of resistant populations and may assist in marker-assisted selection, particularly for major gene resistance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".