MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092805164 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2000.402422x

Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Morphological Characteristics of Timothy Populations Selected for Low and High Forage Nitrogen Concentrations

2000· article· en· W2092805164 on OpenAlexaff
A. Brégard, Gilles Bélanger, R. Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForageBiologyTiller (botany)PopulationRuminantDry matterShootAgronomyBiomass (ecology)NitrogenAnimal scienceFertilizerYield (engineering)BotanyPastureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving timothy ( Phleum pratense L.) N use efficiency (NUE) through genetic selection aims at producing greater or similar forage dry matter (DM) yields with less N fertilizer while maintaining N concentration close to the optimal level required for ruminant nutrition. Two populations of timothy, arising from divergent selection for high (N+) and low (N−) forage N concentration, and a reference population, ‘Champ’, were studied under controlled conditions with N rates of 1, 5, 10, and 20 mg N plant −1 wk −1 The populations N− and Champ produced more forage DM yield than N+. This difference in forage production was the result of changes in biomass partitioning between shoots and roots because, at the whole plant level, no differences in total biomass (shoots + roots) were found. On the basis of total biomass, there were no population differences in NUE and N accumulation efficiency (NAE). For a given level of forage DM yield, N+ had a greater N accumulation than N− and Champ and, therefore, a greater N concentration. The greater forage N concentration of N+ was not due to a greater leaf N concentration but to a greater proportion of leaves. The population N+ also had a greater proportion of roots than N−. The forage insoluble N concentration of N+ was greater than that of N−, while NO 3 –N concentrations of the populations were similar. The population N+ had a greater tiller density and specific leaf area (SLA) than N−. Differences in forage DM yield and N concentration between two populations selected for low and high N concentrations were mainly due to the modification of C and N partitioning between shoots and roots, and between leaves and stems. Our results highlight the role of biomass partitioning in improving grass NUE or N concentration.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207