HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (28) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Welch, S. M. Articles by Dong, Z. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Welch, S. M. Articles by Dong, Z. Agricola Articles by Welch, S. M. Articles by Dong, Z. Related Collections Crop Models Plant and Environment Interactions

A Genetic Neural Network Model of Flowering Time Control in Arabidopsis thaliana

^a Dep. of Agron., Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506
^b Div. of Biol., Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Initial genetic neural network. The nodes correspond to genes controlling flowering time. Darker arrows denote the autonomous pathway, and the lighter tone indicates the photoperiod path. The inputs are daylength (L) and days after planting (D). Inputs with underlines were later dropped (see text).

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Neural network notation example: (a) a simple neural network structure, (b) its corresponding notation with example weights, and (c) equivalent computer code. The network inputs are the two variables X1 and X2. The final output is from the C node as indicated by the symbol (C_out in the computer code).

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Predicted vs. observed completion of the inflorescence transition. To focus on the accuracy of the transition, only those data are plotted for which either the predicted or actual values are between 0.05 and 0.95.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Cumulative distribution of sums of squared errors (SSEs) for 300 random networks. Training for all networks began with parameter values generating an SSE of 31.81. Final SSEs ranged from 6.50 to 31.13. The genetically based network had a final SSE of 0.59.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Predictions from the final two-temperature model. To simplify the plot, each series is truncated 1 d before (after) the first (last) observed plant transition. Symbols are actual data, and lines are model predictions (denoted A and P in the legend, respectively). The black arrows indicate the switch in the transition order of FVE and CO with cooling (see text).

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Relation between genotype x environment interaction magnitude and differences in genotype means. The shape of the scatter is consistent with both the rarity and existence of exchanges in anthesis date order among pairs of soybean varieties grown in different environments (see text).