MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404454810 · doi:10.1111/pbr.13246

Genetic Variation in Yield and Fruit Weight Among Strawberry (<i>Fragaria</i> ×<i>ananassa</i>) Cultivars and the Interaction With Year and Location Effect

2024· article· en· W4404454810 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julio Chacón, Gina E. Fernandez, Fikret Işik

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorth American Strawberry Grower's Association
KeywordsFragariaBiologyCultivarYield (engineering)RosaceaeHorticultureGene–environment interactionGenetic variationBotanyAgronomyGeneGenotypeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Strawberry ( Fragaria × ananassa ) is an important crop in the United States. In this study, we analysed strawberry trials established across 7 years and two locations. Our objective was to estimate genetic parameters and predict breeding values for yield. Linear mixed models were used for unbalanced data across years and locations and study the genotype by year and location interactions. The results suggested significant differences between cultivars for fruit weight but not for total and marketable yield. Fruit weight was controlled by genetic factors, shown by the high heritability of cultivar means (0.93), whereas marketable yield and total yield showed lower heritability estimates (0.48 and 0.63, respectively), indicating a substantial environmental influence. For fruit weight, cultivars exhibited stability across years and locations, supported by the high additive genetic correlations observed for cultivar‐by‐year ( r = 0.90) and cultivar‐by‐location interactions ( r = 0.98). Fruit weight and total yield were genetically independent as suggested near zero additive genetic correlation (−0.06 ± 0.416) between two traits, and they should be considered for an index selection in the strawberry breeding strategy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207