Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spatial analysis methods for forest genetic trials

Dutkowski, Gregory W, Silva, João Costa e, Gilmour, Arthur R, Lopez, Gustavo A·2002·Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Abstract

Spatial analysis, using separable autoregressive processes of residuals, is increasingly used in agricultural variety yield trial analysis. Interpretation of the sample variogram has become a tool for the detection of global trend and "extraneous" variation aligned with trial rows and columns. We applied this methodology to five selected forest genetic trials using an individual tree additive genetic model. We compared the base design model with post-blocking, a first-order autoregressive model of residuals (AR1), that model with an independent error term (AR1η), a combined base and autoregressive model, an autoregressive model only within replicates and an autoregressive model applied at the plot level. Post-blocking gave substantial improvements in log-likelihood over the base model, but the AR1η model was even better. The independent error term was necessary with the individual tree additive genetic model to avoid substantial positive bias in estimates of additive genetic variance in the AR1 model and blurred patterns of variation. With the combined model, the design effects were eliminated, or their significance was greatly reduced. Applying the AR1η model to individual trees was better than applying it at the plot level or applying it on a replicate-by-replicate basis. The relative improvements achieved in genetic response to selection did not exceed 6%. Examination of the spatial distribution of the residuals and the variogram of the residuals allowed the identification of the spatial patterns present. While additional significant terms could be fitted to model some of the spatial patterns and stationary variograms were attained in some instances, this resulted in only marginal increases in genetic gain. Use of a combined model is recommended to enable improved analysis of experimental data.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/x02-111

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Dutkowski, G. W., Silva, J. C. E., Gilmour, A. R., & Lopez, G. A.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Published
2002-12-01
Volume
32
Issue
12
Pages
2201-2214
ISSN
  • 0045-5067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1208-6037
OpenAlex
W2157433349
Cited by
177
References
7
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spatial analysis methods for forest genetic trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/x02-111
The paper
Dutkowski, G. W., Silva, J. C. E., Gilmour, A. R., & Lopez, G. A. (2002). Spatial analysis methods for forest genetic trials. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. https://doi.org/10.1139/x02-111

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.