MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001978100 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2008.08.0490

Water‐Use Efficiency Is Negatively Correlated with Leaf Epidermal Conductance in Cotton (<i>Gossypium</i> spp.)

2009· article· en· W2001978100 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Fish, Hugh J. Earl

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater-use efficiencyBiologyTraitAgronomyFiber cropGossypium hirsutumGossypiumStomatal conductanceBotanyPhotosynthesisIrrigation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water‐use efficiency (WUE) may be a useful trait for improving productivity of cotton ( Gossypium spp.) under certain water‐limited conditions, but it is difficult to measure in the field or in large controlled‐environment screening studies. Recently, an easily measured trait, the epidermal conductance of dark‐adapted leaves (g dark ), was shown to be predictive of whole‐plant WUE in soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Here, a greenhouse experiment was conducted using 22 cotton race stocks, converted lines, and commercial varieties to determine if the relationship between WUE and g dark previously observed in soybean also exists in cotton. A secondary objective was to determine if genotypic differences in WUE and g dark in cotton were constitutive in nature, or if they differed between water replete and drought conditions. There was significant genotypic variation for both WUE and g dark , and in both cases the lack of a treatment × genotype interaction indicated that the trait was constitutive. The relationship between WUE and g dark ( r = −0.75, P &lt; 0.0001) was very similar to that reported previously for soybean. Understanding the mechanistic link between g dark and WUE may provide further insight into the physiological basis of genotypic differences in WUE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207