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 15N is supplied, it is not known whether wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants have a preference for 14N 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 14N source (0.37 atom % 15N) throughout the growing period, while another set of plants received the same amounts of N from an 15N‐enriched fertilizer source (91.2 atom % 15N). At crop maturity, about 60% of the applied 15N was recovered in different plant parts, and 65% of the total N content in the plant was enriched with 15N 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 15N 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 15N by the wheat plants, and the greater natural abundance of the 14N is the main reason why plant tissues are dominated with 14N 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".