ArticleGenes2025
Genetic Parameters, Prediction of Genotypic Values, and Forage Stability in
Article in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectives
methodsA total of 84 ecotypes were evaluated over three consecutive years for twelve morphological and forage-related traits. Genetic parameters, genotypic values, and selection gains were estimated using mixed models (REML/BLUP). Stability was assessed through harmonic means of genotypic performance, and the multi-trait genotype-ideotype distance index (MGIDI) was applied to identify ecotypes with balanced performance across traits.
resultsSubstantial genetic variability was detected for most traits, particularly those related to biomass accumulation, such as total dry matter, the number of tillers, fresh matter, and leaf dry matter. These traits exhibited medium to high heritability and strong potential for selection. Ecotype N3.10 consistently showed superior performance across productivity traits while other ecotypes, such as N4.14 and N1.09, stood out for quality-related attributes and cold tolerance, respectively. The application of the MGIDI index enabled the identification of 17 ecotypes with balanced multi-trait performance, supporting the simultaneous selection for productivity, quality, and adaptability. Comparisons with
conclusionsThe integration of REML/BLUP analyses, stability parameters, and ideotype-based multi-trait selection provided a robust framework for identifying elite
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.