Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Comparison of prediction accuracies across three sampling and two calibration strategies. Three sampling strategies for the selection of 20 % of the G2 population as the validation set were applied: random, S1: between half-sib families and S2: within full-sib families. Two calibration strategies were used for each sampling strategy. For predictions for the 20 % of the G2 population selected, we used the remaining 80 % of the G2 plus their progenitors (G0 and G1) as the calibration set. The mean prediction accuracy (and range) for models based on pedigree information (ABLUP) and marker information (GBLUP and B-LASSO), and the results for the three traits studied (tree diameter, height and stem straightness) are presented

From: Performance of genomic prediction within and across generations in maritime pine

  Calibration set: 80 % of the G2 Calibration set: 80 % of the G2 + G0/G1
ABLUP GBLUP B-LASSO ABLUP GBLUP B-LASSO
Circumference Random 0.78 (0.68–0.85) 0.73 (0.62–0.80) 0.72 (0.62–0.80) 0.83 (0.79–0.89) 0.74 (0.67–0.81) 0.74 (0.67–0.81)
S1 0.55 (0.34–0.74) 0.52 (0.24–0.67) 0.52 (0.24–0.67) 0.81 (0.65–0.89) 0.69 (0.51–0.81) 0.69 (0.51–0.81)
S2 0.80 (0.73–0.85) 0.74 (0.67–0.81) 0.74 (0.67–0.80) 0.84 (0.8–0.89) 0.75 (0.68–0.84) 0.75 (0.68–0.82)
Height Random 0.68 (0.54–0.78) 0.66 (0.56–0.77) 0.66 (0.56–0.77) 0.75 (0.66–0.82) 0.68 (0.6–0.76) 0.68 (0.59–0.75)
S1 0.58 (0.46–0.77) 0.58 (0.43–0.75) 0.58 (0.38–0.74) 0.74 (0.63–0.87) 0.67 (0.54–0.79) 0.66 (0.53–0.79)
S2 0.70 (0.6–0.77) 0.69 (0.60–0.76) 0.68 (0.59–0.76) 0.75 (0.66–0.83) 0.70 (0.59–0.79) 0.69 (0.59–0.79)
Stem straightness Random 0.86 (0.8–0.90) 0.81 (0.75–0.86) 0.82 (0.76–0.86) 0.90 (0.86–0.94) 0.82 (0.74–0.88) 0.82 (0.75–0.88)
S1 0.67 (0.51–0.79) 0.65 (0.48–0.77) 0.66 (0.48–0.77) 0.88 (0.78–0.93) 0.77 (0.62–0.87) 0.77 (0.63–0.87)
S2 0.87 (0.84–0.91) 0.81 (0.77–0.87) 0.81 (0.77–0.88) 0.91 (0.88–0.94) 0.80 (0.76–0.85) 0.80 (0.76–0.86)