Seedling root length in<i>Brassica napus</i>L. is indicative of seed yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Koscielny C. B. and Gulden R. H. 2012. Seedling root length in Brassica napus L. is indicative of seed yield. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 1229–1237. Recent studies have shown relationships between root growth and development and seed production potential in some crops; however, little is known about this relationship in Brassica napus. Field and growth room experiments were conducted to determine the relationship between root parameters up to the four-leaf stage and seed yield among a group of four open-pollinated and four hybrid B. napus genotypes with different yield potential. In the field studies, root length was the best indicator of seed yield at the one- to two-leaf and the three- to four-leaf stages of development, and was one of the most consistent parameters among sites and years. Poor ability to recover fine roots from field soils at the cotyledon stage contributed to the relatively poor relationships between root parameters and seed yield compared with shoot parameters at this developmental stage. The growth room study clearly showed that root length is an excellent measure of seedling vigour and an indicator of seed yield as early as 7 d after imbibition. These studies demonstrate the importance of early root development in canola and its potential as a screening trait for seed yield in breeding programs.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".