Carbon isotope discrimination of two-rowed and six-rowed barley genotypes under irrigated and non-irrigated field conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon isotope discrimination (Δ) has been widely used to estimate the water-use efficiency (WUE) of C 3 cereals including barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Genetic lines of barley belong to two phenotypic classes for ear morphology, either two-rowed or six-rowed, a simply inherited trait. We tested the value of Δ as a predictor of grain yield and WUE for these two types of barley under different conditions of water availability. We also investigated if differences in plant morphology and yield parameters between these two types resulted in different carbon dynamics and different Δ values for grain, awn and flag leaf. We conducted field experiments for 3 consecutive years with genetic lines of both ear types in northern Utah and southeastern Idaho under irrigated and non-irrigated conditions, including two line-source sprinkler experiments. Correlations between grain yield and Δ values of flag leaf, awn and grain were stronger in combined analyses across ear types than in analyses within two-rowed (2R) and six-rowed (6R) types. Nevertheless, we found that Δ of mature awns and grains were a good predictor of yield for both barley types under low to moderate water stress. However, Δ was not a reliable predictor for barley yield under severe water stress. Pearson’s correlations were used to test associations between Δ values and several yield parameters (heading date, above-ground dry matter, harvest index, grain mass per fertile tiller). Our data indicated that among the field-grown genetic lines tested, the two types of barley differed in Δ values for grain, awn and flag leaf. Values of Δ for 2R barley were usually lower, suggesting higher WUE, than those for 6R types. Fundamental differences in sink size or grain mass per fertile tiller between 2R and 6R cultivars probably have important consequences on carbon/water metabolism at the whole tiller level. Key words: Barley, carbon isotope discrimination, yield, awn, drought, irrigation
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".