Decimal growth stages for precision wheat production in changing environments?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The utility of the decimal growth stage (DGS) scoring system for cereals is reviewed. The DGS is the most widely used scale in academic and commercial applications because of its comprehensive coverage of cereal developmental stages, the ease of use and definition provided and adoption by official agencies. The DGS has demonstrable and established value in helping to optimise the timing of agronomic inputs, particularly with regard to plant growth regulators, herbicides, fungicides and soluble nitrogen fertilisers. In addition, the DGS is used to help parameterise crop models, and also in understanding the response and adaptation of crops to the environment. The value of the DGS for increasing precision relies on it indicating, to some degree, the various stages in the development of the stem apex and spike. Coincidence of specific growth stage scores with the transition of the apical meristem from a vegetative to a reproductive state, and also with the period of meiosis, is unreliable. Nonetheless, in pot experiments it is shown that the broad period of booting (DGS 41–49) appears adequate for covering the duration when the vulnerability of meiosis to drought and heat stress is exposed. Similarly, the duration of anthesis (61–69) is particularly susceptible to abiotic stresses: initially from a fertility perspective, but increasingly from a mean grain weight perspective as flowering progresses to DGS 69 and then milk development. These associations with DGS can have value at the crop level of organisation: for interpreting environmental effects, and in crop modelling. However, genetic, biochemical and physiological analysis to develop greater understanding of stress acclimation during the vegetative state, and tolerance at meiosis, does require more precision than DGS can provide. Similarly, individual floret analysis is needed to further understand the genetic basis of stress tolerance during anthesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".