Effect of Drought Stress on Leaf and Whole Canopy Radiation Use Efficiency and Yield of Maize
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drought stress reduces yield of maize ( Zea mays L.) and other grain crops by (i) reducing canopy absorption of incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), (ii) reducing radiation use efficiency (RUE), and (iii) reducing harvest index (HI). The primary objective of this work was to quantify yield losses attributable to each of these components for maize exposed to drought stress in a 2‐yr field study. A second objective was to examine the relationship between RUE at the single leaf level (estimated using chlorophyll fluorescence techniques) and RUE at the whole crop level. Two levels of soil water deficit and a control treatment were established using drip tape irrigation, and dry matter harvests were taken at midseason and at physiological maturity. Mild and severe water stress treatments reduced final grain yield by 63 and 85%, respectively, in 2000, and by 13 and 26%, respectively, in 2001. Reduction of intercepted PAR (IPAR) was generally a very minor yield loss component. Yield losses attributable to reduced RUE and reduced HI were of similar magnitude. Weekly chlorophyll fluorescence measurements were used to estimate the average quantum efficiency of photosystem II at a photosynthetic photon flux density of 1200 μmol m −2 s −1 (Φ II1200 ) for each plot. Crop dry matter accumulation was not linearly related to IPAR, due to decreased RUE in the water stress treatments. However, the linear relationship was restored when daily IPAR was multiplied by the current estimate of Φ II1200 , suggesting that Φ II1200 can be used as an indicator of whole‐crop RUE.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 it