TABLE 2.
Genome-wide prediction abilities of flowering time (FT), plant height (PH), and thousand grain weight (TGW) obtained by applying five-fold cross validation to the entire set of phenotyped winter barley accessions modeling the row type as covariate (RT).
Trait | Method | All | 2-Rowed | 6-Rowed | Intermedium |
FT | RT-covariatea | 0.717 (0.004) | 0.701 (0.007) | 0.703 (0.005) | 0.593 (0.032) |
RT-ignoredb | 0.720 (0.004) | 0.702 (0.007) | 0.703 (0.005) | 0.614 (0.030) | |
RT-withinc | n.a. | 0.691 (0.013) | 0.701 (0.007) | 0.450 (0.052) | |
PH | RT-covariate | 0.829 (0.002) | 0.797 (0.004) | 0.829 (0.003) | 0.777 (0.008) |
RT-ignored | 0.828 (0.002) | 0.798 (0.004) | 0.829 (0.003) | 0.782 (0.008) | |
RT-within | n.a. | 0.785 (0.005) | 0.830 (0.002) | 0.713 (0.021) | |
TGW | RT-covariate | 0.860 (0.002) | 0.632 (0.013) | 0.859 (0.002) | 0.775 (0.018) |
RT-ignored | 0.853 (0.002) | 0.556 (0.014) | 0.854 (0.002) | 0.813 (0.012) | |
RT-within | n.a. | 0.610 (0.012) | 0.860 (0.002) | 0.741 (0.025) |
aRow type was treated as a covariate (fixed effect). bRow type was not considered in the model. cWith-in row type prediction, results were extracted from Table 1 for comparison. For each row type subpopulation, the prediction ability was compared with the result obtained in the within-subpopulation prediction. The standard deviations of the prediction abilities were presented in brackets.