MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162952006 · doi:10.1071/cp11218

High temperature tolerance in chickpea and its implications for plant improvement

2012· article· en· W2162952006 on OpenAlexaff
Viola Devasirvatham, Daniel K. Y. Tan, Pooran M. Gaur, T. N. Raju, Richard Trethowan

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop and Pasture Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGermplasmLegumeHeat stressMonogastricAgronomyPlant breedingPoint of deliveryRuminantCropYield (engineering)Animal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important food legume and heat stress affects chickpea ontogeny over a range of environments. Generally, chickpea adapts to high temperatures through an escape mechanism. However, heat stress during reproductive development can cause significant yield loss. The most important effects on the reproductive phase that affect pod set, seed set and yield are: (1) flowering time, (2) asynchrony of male and female floral organ development, and (3) impairment of male and female floral organs. While this review emphasises the importance of high temperatures >30°C, the temperature range of 32–35°C during flowering also produces distinct effects on grain yield. Recent field screening at ICRISAT have identified several heat-tolerant germplasm, which can be used in breeding programs for improving heat tolerance in chickpea. Research on the impact of heat stress in chickpea is not extensive. This review describes the status of chickpea production, the effects of high temperature on chickpea, and the opportunities for genetic improvement of chickpea tolerance to high temperatures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations123
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop and Pasture ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207