Leaf photosynthetic properties and biomass accumulation of selected western Canadian spring wheat cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chytyk, C. J., Hucl, P. J. and Gray, G. R. 2011. Leaf photosynthetic properties and biomass accumulation of selected western Canadian spring wheat cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 305–314. Current studies indicate wheat straw as a viable source for the production of cellulosic ethanol. Since photosynthetic performance impacts the overall success of the mature plant, this study aimed to measure the photosynthetic vigour of 11 spring wheat cultivars during field development as well as their biomass composition at maturity to determine which would be optimum for ethanol production. All cultivars had similar maximal quantum yields of photosystem II photochemistry (FV/FM), normalized difference vegetation index and biomass composition in the field. However, differences were observed in photosynthetic rate, with McKenzie having the highest light-saturated maximal rate of CO2 uptake (A max) and apparent quantum yield of CO2 uptake (Φapp CO2), while also having the best water use efficiency. Snowbird was found to have the lowest CO2-compensation point (Γ*) and A max. Upon subjecting wheat samples to photoinhibitory conditions, McKenzie and Kyle were found to be the most resistant and susceptible, respectively, with a difference of 11% in FV/FM. Abundance of xanthophyll pigments were not found to be a contributing cause to differential photoinhibitory resistance as there was not a noticeable difference between cultivars. Although some cultivars were found to have enhanced photosynthetic traits over others, these were slight and did not contribute to changes in plant biomass. However, McKenzie did present a higher cellulose content, which would be favourable for ethanol production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".