MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021056164 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2009.02.0094

Feasibility of Seed Production from Nonflowering Orchardgrass

2010· article· en· W2021056164 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Casler, Ronald C. Johnson, Randolph Barker, Maria M. Jenderek, Y. A. Papadopoulos, J. H. Cherney

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDactylis glomerataBiologyVernalizationAgronomySelection (genetic algorithm)PanicleBotanyPoaceaephotoperiodism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Nonflowering or sparse flowering orchardgrass ( Dactylis glomerata L.) would greatly simplify management of intensive rotational grazing systems. Our objective was to quantify seed production on nonflowering orchardgrass clones selected in cold‐winter climates, but grown for seed in mild‐winter climates. We evaluated 98 orchardgrass clones for seed production traits at four locations. Most plants (∼92%) flowered at the three northern locations, but only 38% flowered at Parlier, which may have a winter insufficiently cold for adequate floral induction and vernalization. Mean panicle number was lowest (11%) for plants selected at the location with the warmest winter conditions, and highest (37%) for plants selected at the location with the coldest winter conditions. These results confirm our expectations that the most desirable plants (nonflowering under cold winters and normal flowering under mild winters) should arise from selection under more severe winters. Selection for nonflowering under mild winter conditions simply leads to nonflowering plants under all conditions. These results demonstrate that individual orchardgrass genotypes are capable of dual phenotypic expression, flowering in mild‐winter climates or expressing the nonflowering trait in cold‐winter climates and that the expression of this trait depends on both the selection and evaluation location.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207