Physiological characteristics of recent Canada Western Red Spring wheat cultivars: Components of grain nitrogen yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic yield gains have been difficult to achieve within the Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) class, partially because of the requirement for high protein concentration. A previous study indicated that four newer, high-yield CWRS cultivars (registered 1994–1997) also had higher protein yields. The objective of the present study was to determine if the increase in grain nitrogen (protein) yield of the four newer wheat cultivars, relative to two older cultivars, Neepawa (registered in 1969) and Marquis (introduced in 1909), resulted from increased plant nitrogen uptake, more efficient utilization of nitrogen, or a combination of these factors. The higher nitrogen yields were primarily attributed to more efficient utilization and redistribution of the nitrogen rather than increased uptake of soil nitrogen. The nitrogen harvest index (NHI) of the new cultivars, considered as a group, was higher than the NHI of Neepawa, which in turn was higher than that of the much older cultivar Marquis. The NHI of each of the new cultivars was higher than that of Marquis. The nitrogen concentration in the non-grain tissue at maturity (NGNCM) of the new cultivars, considered as a group, was lower than that of Neepawa, which in turn was lower than the NGNCM of Marquis. At maturity, all five tissues (leaf blade, stem plus sheath, peduncle, glume, and rachis) for the new cultivars and Neepawa had lower nitrogen concentrations than for the corresponding tissues of Marquis. The nitrogen concentration of the peduncle and leaf-blade tissues of the new cultivars, as a group, were also lower at maturity than the corresponding nitrogen concentrations for Neepawa. The results suggest that low non-grain nitrogen concentration at harvest is associated with improved NHI and grain nitrogen yield in CWRS wheat. This information may improve our understanding of the higher protein yields that have been achieved within this class, and assist in the selection of future parents. Key words: Nitrogen harvest index, nitrogen uptake, nitrogen yield, protein, remobilization, Triticum aestivum
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".