Wheat Development, Productivity, and Nitrogen Use Are Unaffected by Stable Isotope Form of the Nitrogen Source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under conditions where an adequate amount of isotopic 15 N is supplied, it is not known whether wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) plants have a preference for 14 N against the heavy isotope. A pot experiment was conducted for 2 yr with manually controlled nitrogen (N) supply to assess crop development, dry matter production, and N acquisition and partitioning in spring wheat plants grown in plastic pots filled with Ottawa sand. A set of plants were supplied with N from an 14 N source (0.37 atom % 15 N) throughout the growing period, while another set of plants received the same amounts of N from an 15 N‐enriched fertilizer source (91.2 atom % 15 N). At crop maturity, about 60% of the applied 15 N was recovered in different plant parts, and 65% of the total N content in the plant was enriched with 15 N compared with<0.5% in the control treatment. There were not any visual differences between the two sets of plants; neither was there a difference in quantitative traits such as plant height, leaf greenness, dry matter production, N acquisition and partitioning. This study demonstrated that given similar concentrations of the two N treatments that differed markedly in their 15 N enrichment, there was no differentiation in N uptake and partitioning resulting from isotopic enrichment of the two N sources. This indicated that there is no preference against 15 N by the wheat plants, and the greater natural abundance of the 14 N is the main reason why plant tissues are dominated with 14 N isotope.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".