Dry Matter and Nitrogen Partitioning Patterns in Bt and Non‐Bt Near‐Isoline Maize Hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While maize ( Zea mays L.) hybrids with the Bt transgene from Bacillus thuringiensis have been gaining popularity, their dry matter (DM) production, N uptake, and whole‐plant N dynamics have not been assessed to justify their added cost. A field experiment conducted for 2 yr in Ottawa, Canada, studied DM and N partitioning patterns, and N‐use efficiency (NUE) of a conventional (Pioneer 3893) and its near‐isoline transgenic hybrid (Pioneer 38W36 Bt). The hybrids were grown with two N treatments (0 kg N [N0] or 150 kg N ha −1 with 15 N‐labeled source [N150]). Plant samples were analyzed for DM, N concentration, and the fate of 15 N at the V7, silking, and physiological maturity (PM) stages. Both hybrids were similar in harvest index, leaf chlorophyll content, and N concentrations and contents at the V7, silking, and PM stages. The Bt hybrid produced greater DM in leaves (42.1 vs. 37.5 g plant −1 ) and kernels (134 vs. 121 g plant −1 ) than its non‐Bt counterpart, it also accumulated about 11% more N in kernels and on a whole‐plant basis. Both hybrids had a similar partitioning of N and NUE in different plant parts. About 47% of the applied N was recovered at harvest, 70% of which was accumulated in the kernels of both hybrids. There was no indication that the Bt hybrid accumulated more N than its non‐Bt near‐isoline until the silking stage; the greater N content of the Bt hybrid at the PM stage was associated with greater DM in the kernels and leaves.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".