Comparing plant water relations for wheat with alternative pulse and oilseed crops grown in the semiarid Canadian prairie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the drought physiology of alternate crops is essential to assess the production risks of new cropping systems. We compared the water relations of dry (field) pea (Pisum sativum L.), chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), canola (Brassica napus L.) and mustard (Brassica juncea L.) with spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under different moisture availabilities in field trials conducted in 1997 and 1998 at Swift Current, SK. Stress experience and stress responses varied with crop type. In general, there were similarities in drought physiology between the two pulse crops and between the two oilseed crops. The mean predawn leaf water potential of pea was frequently lowest, while the mean midday leaf water potential of wheat was at least -0.40 MPa lower than for any other crop. The crops exhibited different strategies to overcome water stress. Wheat had the lowest osmotic potential at full turgor, except under drought when turgor was lowest for chickpea and wheat; the highest values were observed in Brassica spp. Mean midday pressure potentials were lowest in wheat (and mostly negative, indicating loss of turgor) and highest for the pulse crops. Mean midday pressure potential for canola was positive when well-watered, otherwise it was near 0. Despite lowering osmotic potential, wheat could not maintain positive turgor much of the time at midday. Pulse crops, with the contributions from both osmotic adjustment and cell elasticity, maintained positive turgor over a wider range of water potentials compared with the other crops. With regard to both osmotic adjustment and tissue elasticity, we ranked the crops from high to low ability to adjust to moderate to severe water stress as pulses > wheat > Brassica oilseeds. Key words: Leaf water, osmotic, turgor potentials, wheat, pulse, canola, semiarid prairie
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".