Osmotic adjustment in leaves of <i>Brassica</i> oilseeds in response to water deficit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of water deficit on water content (WC), total soluble solids (TSS), osmotic potential (OP), sugar content and osmotic adjustment (OA) of expanded and partly expanded leaves of Brassica oilseeds was examined. Nine canola (B. napus) cultivars (Karoo, Monty, Pinnacle, Hyden, Mystic, Rainbow, Surpass 300, Surpass 400, Surpass 501), two doubled haploids, one from Karoo (KDH) and the other from Monty (MDH) and one line of Indian mustard (B. juncea, PI-81792) were grown under glasshouse and net-house conditions. Expanded wilted leaves of Karoo and Monty absorbed excessive amounts of water per dry weight upon in vitro rehydration compared with control non-stressed leaves, resulting in underestimation of OA calculated on the basis of the relative water content (RWC). Hence, estimation of OA based on water weight per leaf dry weight (WC) was preferred. Young expanding leaves maintained visual turgor for 6-7 d after withholding irrigation, while expanded leaves on the same plants ceased to regain turgor overnight. The young expanding leaves exhibited greater accumulation of TSS and, consequently, more negative OPs compared with expanded leaves. Maintenance of OA after irrigation and turgor recovery was evident in both expanded and expanding leaves. Although OA under drought and upon turgor recovery varied within cultivars in different experiments, outstanding OA capacity, in terms of both magnitude and stability, was identified in the cultivar Hyden and in the doubled haploid of Monty, indicating the potential to select for this trait as well as to exploit variability for OA through haploidization. Key words: Brassica oilseeds, drought stress, osmotic adjustment, haploid lines
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".