Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15278282›Full record

ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik2004

Open-nucleus breeding strategies compared with population-wide positive assortative mating: I. Equal distribution of testing efforts.

M Lstibůrek, T J Mullin, D Lindgren, O Rosvall

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M LstibůrekDepartment of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695-8002, USA.
T J Mullin
D Lindgren
O Rosvall

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Positive assortative mating (PAM) can enhance the additive genetic variance in a breeding population(BP). This increases the potential for gains in the production population (PP, selected subset of the BP) for recurrent selection programs in forest trees. The assortment of mates can be either: (1) by individual tree rank across the whole BP (PAM), or (2) trees of similar rank can be merged into larger hierarchical groups and then mated randomly within group ("open"-nucleus breeding,NB). The objective of this study was to compare PAM and NB in quantitative terms. The NB simulation model assumed two tiers (nucleus, main) with unrestricted migration between the tiers. Clonal tests were used to predict breeding values and test resources per mate were kept constant for all mates. Both gain and diversity were combined into a single selection criterion, "group-merit selection." Alternatives were compared over five breeding cycles by considering genetic gain and diversity in a selected PP established in a seed orchard. The assortment of mates in both alternatives enhanced additive variance and increased the additive effect in the BP, leading to additional gain in the PP. Gains generated under PAM always exceeded gains under NB. Thus, the main message from this study is that PAM in both the short- and long-term results in more gain at any target level of diversity in the PP (the breeder's target) than is achieved by the NB alternative. The optimum size of the nucleus varies with the desired level of seed orchard diversity. At lower target diversity, smaller nucleus sizes are favorable, while larger sizes result in more gain when seed orchard diversity is considered more important.

Indexed as

Crosses, GeneticModels, GeneticBreedingPhenotypeSelection, GeneticTrees

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.