Root System and Water Use Patterns of Different Height Sunflower Cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dwarf sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) cultivars have agronomic and management benefits over conventional standard height sunflower cultivars. However, the effects of reduced plant stature on root systems and water extraction characteristics are not known. Therefore, field trials were conducted at two locations in western Canada during 1994 and 1995 to compare root system characteristics and water extraction patterns of dwarf hybrids [two Sunwheat hybrids: ‘Sunwheat‐101’ (SW‐101) and ‘Sunwheat‐103’ (SW‐103)], and dwarf open pollinated cultivars [two Sunola cultivars, ‘AC‐Aurora’ (Aurora) and ‘AC‐Sierra’ (Sierra)] with standard height hybrids (IS‐6111 and SF‐187). Reducing plant height reduced rooting depth (by 0.20 to 0.60 m), root length density (by 6.6 m m−2) and root distribution in SW‐103 compared with IS‐6111, while no differences were observed in these traits between IS‐6111 and Aurora. The soil water depletion front velocities of sunflower cultivars were influenced by accumulated heat units, suggesting a temperature effect on rooting characteristics. IS‐6111 (0.14 to 0.19 cm growing degree d−1) and Aurora (0.15 to 0.17 cm growing degree d−1) had significantly higher depletion front velocities compared with SW‐103 (0.09 to 0.11 cm growing degree d−1). Greater soil water depletion by standard height hybrids in agronomy trials (average 59 and 79 mm more compared with dwarf hybrids and dwarf open pollinated cultivars, respectively) was attributed to deeper rooting depth (average 0.2 and 0.4 m more compared with dwarf hybrids and dwarf open pollinated cultivars, respectively) and more efficient water extraction, although a longer growth duration may also have been a factor.
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".