MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585431759 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.40.4.1145d

Photosynthetic Response of Carrots to Varying Irradiances, CO2 Concentrations, Moisture, and Nutrition

2005· article· en· W2585431759 on OpenAlexaff
Rajasekaran R. Lada, F. Christine Pettipas, Steve Kyei-Boahen, Robert J. Gordon, Tess Astatkie

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotosynthesisTranspirationCultivarStomatal conductanceWater-use efficiencyHorticultureChemistryDaucus carotaNutrientAnimal scienceBotanyBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genotypes and environmental parameters interactively act on plants and modify their yield responses through modifying photosynthetic processes. In order to optimize yield, it is critical to understand the photosynthetic behavior of the crop as altered by genotypes and environment. Leaf gas exchange parameters of carrot ( Daucus carota L.) cultivars Cascade, Carson, Oranza, and Red Core Chantenay (RCC) were examined in response to various irradiances, fertility levels, moisture regimes, and to elevated CO 2 concentrations. Leaf net photosynthetic rate (P N ), stomatal conductance (g s ), and transpiration rate (E) were measured. Cultivars responded similarly to increasing PAR and CO 2 concentrations and did not differ in photosynthetic parameters. Increasing PAR from 100 to 1000 μmol·m -2 ·s -1 increased P N , which did not reach saturation. The g s and E increased to a peak between 600 and 800 μmol·m -2 ·s -1 , then rapidly declined, resulting in a sharp increase in water use efficiency (WUE). Increasing CO 2 concentrations from 50 to 1050 μmol·mol -1 increased P N until saturation at 650 μmol·mol -1 . The g s and E increased to a peak at 350 μmol·mol -1 and then declined. WUE increased linearly with increasing CO 2 . Carrots exposed to drought over a period of 5 days decreased P N and E. The P N decrease was cultivar specific. Nutrient concentrations of 0 to 400 ppm gave a similar pattern of decrease for P N , E, and g s . Treatment of 50 ppm had the highest P N , E, and g s . The WUE generally increased with increasing nutrient 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207