Agronomic Performance of Hard Red Spring Wheat Isolines Sensitive and Insensitive to Photoperiod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of western Canadian hard red spring wheat cultivars (Triticum aestivum L.) are photoperiod insensitive, in part, to accommodate short day winter nurseries within breeding programs. The objective of this study was to compare the agronomic performance of near‐isogenic photoperiod sensitive (PS) and insensitive (PI) hard red spring wheat lines over 21 environments (1996–1998) to determine if insensitivity had an effect on agronomic performance. Eight PS and eight PI isogenic lines within each of three genetic backgrounds including AC Minto, CDC Makwa, and SWP5304 were evaluated. The dominant allele Ppd‐D1 conferred insensitivity to PI lines. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with three replications. Testing environments included Fort Vermillion, AB (58°N), Dawson Creek, BC (55°N), Saskatoon, SK (52°N), Elrose, SK (51°N), Elgin, MB (49°N), Bozeman, MT (45°N), Ste. Foy, QC (46°N), Charlottetown, PE (46°N), Guelph, ON (43°N), and Akron, CO (40°N). Measurements were made on 11 traits including final leaf number, days to heading and maturity, plant height, grain yield, kernel weight, spikelets per spike (total, fertile, and sterile), seeds per spike, and yield per spike. Generally, PS lines were later in heading and maturity, taller, initiated more leaves and spikelet primordia, and 5% higher yielding. Genetic backgrounds differed significantly in all traits, except final leaf number and grain yield. Significant, noncrossover, photoperiod response type × genetic background interactions were observed only for fertile spikelets per spike and seeds per spike. Our results suggest that photoperiod sensitivity may be advantageous in the northern latitudes of North America.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".