MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2602113327 · doi:10.4141/cjps2011-057

An evaluation of freezing tolerance of winter chickpea (<i>Cicer arietinum</i> L.) using controlled freeze tests

2012· article· en· W2602113327 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ahmad Nezami, Manjula Bandara, Lawrence V. Gusta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture Food and Rural Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreezing toleranceCultivarHorticultureBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nezami, A., Bandara, M. S. and Gusta, L. V. 2012. An evaluation of freezing tolerance of winter chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) using controlled freeze tests. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 155–161. Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) are subject to freezing injury and/or winter kill. Field testing for freezing tolerance evaluation is slow, unreliable, and highly variable; thus an artificial freeze test that correlates with field survival is required. Our objective was to develop a reliable and simple artificial freeze test to evaluate the freezing tolerance of winter chickpeas. Four cultivars with varying levels of freezing tolerance were grown and cold acclimated under low irradiance (150 µmol m−2 s−1) and high irradiance (400 µmol m−2 s−1). Acclimated whole plants or excised leaflets were subjected to six tests to determine the LT50 temperature (lowest temperature to kill 50% of the plants). In two tests, following the freeze test, whole plants were held at 20°C/15°C (day/night) for 3 wk for re-growth analysis. LT50 was estimated from both axillary buds and foliage re-growth and from foliage re-growth. The LT50 was also assessed on excised plantlets from whole plants frozen to a series of test temperatures. LT50 was determined by re-growth of plantlets held for 1 wk at 20°C in test tubes or by electrolyte leakage following thawing at 20°C. Excised plantlets were frozen to the same temperatures used for the whole plants. LT50 was determined by re-growth in test tubes for 1 wk or by electrolyte leakage. Results from excised plant parts from frozen intact plants or plantlets excised prior to the freeze test were similar to those estimates derived from re-growth analysis of plants frozen whole. Freeze test employing excised plantlets offers high precision and the ability to screen large populations. Plants grown and cold acclimated under an irradiance of 150 µmol m−2 s−1 were not as freezing tolerant as those grown and cold acclimated under an irradiance of 400 µmol m−2 s−1.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicPlant Molecular Biology Research→French-language works237,207→