Differing responses to carbon dioxide enrichment by a dwarf and a normal-sized soybean cultivar may depend on sink capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responses to CO2 enrichment were determined for a dwarf (MiniMax) and a normal-sized (Fiskeby) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Plants were grown in growth chambers with ambient (36 Pa) or elevated (98 Pa) CO2 using a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. Harvests for MiniMax and Fiskeby were increased 6 and 26 d, respectively, by CO2 enrichment. At final maturity, mean biomass for MiniMax and Fiskeby was 53 and 197 g, respectively, in the ambient CO2 treatment and these values were 48 and 199% greater, respectively, in response to CO2 enrichment. Root development was constrained in MiniMax and, unlike Fiskeby, all of the biomass attributed to CO2 enrichment was in the shoot. Cultivar differences were not detected for CO2 assimilation rates, stomatal conductance or substomatal CO2 concentrations. Foliar sucrose was 43% greater (P < 0.05) in MiniMax than in Fiskeby. Pods per plant, total seed mass per plant, seed number per plant and seed oil content were greater for Fiskeby than MiniMax. Seeds of Fiskeby were 75% greater by mass than those of MiniMax. Seed mass of Fiskeby increased about 50% in response to CO2 enrichment, whereas MiniMax was unchanged. Root growth, seed size, seeds per pod and starch accumulation rates for MiniMax were unaffected by CO2 enrichment. The above findings suggested that growth of the dwarf genotype under elevated CO2 was sink limited.Key words: Elevated CO2, atmospheric change, photosynthate partitioning, harvest index, soybean genotypes
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) | 0.001 | 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".