Comparative study of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) response to seven watering regimes in a controlled environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legume crops are often grown in drought-prone areas, and subjected to water stress. Greater understanding of drought tolerance in legumes and the use of physiological traits in breeding programs would likely provide high returns. An experiment was conducted comparing the response of two legume crops, common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), to seven watering regimes, in order to identify traits and timing of observations that are inexpensive and relatively easy to phenotype. Gas exchange measurements were conducted before and after selected waterings, and plants were harvested at flowering for the determination of leaf area, biomass, relative water content, and water potential. Results demonstrated that mungbean exhibited a conservative use of water through lower leaf area and a limit to maximum transpiration under non-limiting soil moisture conditions, as well as a greater partitioning of biomass into stems rather than leaves. Mungbean also maintained higher photosynthesis than common bean in low soil moisture conditions, and maintained higher relative water content than common bean. We suggest investigations into stem water-soluble carbohydrates would be worthwhile.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".