MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081904380 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.3690

Genotype and growing environment influence chickpea (<i>Cicer arietinum</i> L.) seed composition

2009· article· en· W2081904380 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anupam Sinha, Bunyamin Tar’an, B. D. Gossen, Ravindra N. Chibbar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyloseStarchCultivarBiologyAgronomyYield (engineering)Composition (language)HorticultureFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: As a first step towards genetic improvement of seed quality in chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.), seven desi and nine kabuli varieties were grown at multiple sites to assess the affect of environment on seed yield, weight and selected seed constituents. The sites were chosen to represent a range of environments in chickpea production areas of the Canadian prairies. RESULTS: Genotype × environment interaction effects on starch, amylose and protein (desi only) concentrations and seed yield were significant, suggesting that the varieties did not perform consistently relative to each other in the different environments. Starch concentration was negatively correlated ( r kabuli = −0.25, P &lt; 0.05; r desi = −0.16, P &lt; 0.05) with protein concentration in both chickpea market classes. However, repeatability estimates of starch, amylose and protein concentrations were low and inconsistent across chickpea market classes, possibly owing to complex biosynthetic pathways for these constituents. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that testing for seed constituent traits over a range of environments will be required to improve seed quality in individual chickpea varieties. The best selection strategies for seed constituent improvement in chickpea will be influenced by genotype and genotype × environment interaction for these traits. The negative relationship between seed constituents and yield indicates that selection for chickpea cultivars with desired seed composition may require compromise and indirect selection. Copyright © 2009 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations64
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207