MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056650255 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n11p248

Evaluation of Drought Tolerant in Some Wheat Genotypes to Post-anthesis Drought Stress

2012· article· en· W2056650255 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sareh Sadat Sayyah, Mokhtar Ghobadi, Sirous Mansoorifar, Alireza Zebarjadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized block designAnthesisGenotypeBiologyDrought toleranceDrought stressAgronomyCropWater stressHorticultureCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water deficit is the major cause of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield losses in Iran and many other regions where the crop is not normally irrigated. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ability of several selection indices to identify drought-resistant wheat genotypes. Twenty-one bread wheat genotypes were evaluated under two field experiments (post-anthesis drought stress and normal conditions). The experiments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications in two successive growing seasons (2007/2008 and 2008/2009). The results showed that yields in the normal conditions were positively correlated with yields in the stress conditions. Several genotypes with good performance under both conditions were identified. Correlation analysis indicated that the most suitable drought tolerance criteria for screening substitution genotypes were mean productivity (MP), geometric mean productivity (GMP) and stress tolerance index (STI) (Group A genotypes) and when the stress was severe, stress susceptibility index (SSI) was found to be more useful index in discriminating resistant genotypes. Based on different drought indices, genotypes G4, G14 and G9 had the best ranking. In addition bi-plot and cluster analysis cleared superiority of these three genotypes in both seasons.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207