MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059227247 · doi:10.4141/p06-115

When is short-season soybean most susceptible to water stress?

2006· article· en· W2059227247 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Malcolm J. Morrison, Neil B. McLaughlin, Elroy R. Cober, G. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenologyCultivarPoint of deliveryBiologyYield (engineering)Growing seasonAgronomyPrecipitationGlycineWater stressHorticultureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fourteen soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) cultivars were grown at Ottawa from 1993 to 2004 in a replicated design. Phenology, yield and seed quality data were collected. Climate data were merged into the data set. Seven key phenological growth stages were identified and the total precipitation (ppt) between stages was calculated per cultivar for all possible durations. Mean cumulative ppt among the growth stage durations was correlated with mean seed yield, 1000-seed weight (tsw) seed protein and oil content. Variation in ppt prior to flowering did not influence yield. Yield and tsw were found to be most susceptible to water stress from flowering to the end of seed development. The most sensitive stage occurred during a period from the beginning to the end of pod development (R4 to mid R5). Seed protein was correlated with ppt from the beginning of flowering to the beginning of seed development. Seed oil content was reduced by late season precipitation. The identification of the most sensitive stage of development in soybean to water stress will be useful for producers forecasting yield response to precipitation and for plant breeders targeting selection for water stress tolerance. Key words: Water stress, soybean, Glycine max L. Merr.

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)0.000
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 score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207