MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2629770810 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.59

Evaluation of M2 Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Mutants for Yield and its Contributing Traits

2017· article· en· W2629770810 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saima Bano, Zahoor Ahmed Soomro, Arshad Ali Kaleri, Rabab Akram, Sajida Nazeer, Abdul Latif Laghari, Irfan Ali Chandio, Rahila Keerio, Niaz Ahmed Wahocho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Genetic and Mutation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyYield (engineering)Field experimentCropPopulationSpike (software development)Forensic scienceHorticultureGrowing seasonAnimal scienceAgronomyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research was conducted to evaluate the M2 wheat mutant population for yield and its contributing traits. The experiment was conducted at Nuclear Institute of Agriculture (NIA), Tando Jam, during rabi season 2015-2016, in split plot design with three replications. Two wheat varieties (T. D-1 and ESW-9525) were treated with different levelsof gamma rays (150Gy, 200Gy, 250Gy, 300Gy and control) from NIMRA (Nuclear Institute of Medicine and Radiotherapy), Jamshoro. The mutated plants were evaluated along with parental lines (control) for yield and its contributing traits under field conditions. Genetic parameters viz., mean performance, were calculated such as days to 75 % heading, days to 75 % maturity, plant height (cm), spikelets spike-1 and spike length (cm). Mean square showed that there were significant differences between wheat varieties for days to 75% heading, days to 75% maturity, plant height (cm), spikelets spike-1 and spike length (cm) treatments of gamma radiation caused significant variation in all the traits studied. The interaction between treatments × varieties showed highly significant differences for the entire traits indicating that varieties responded differently for radiation treatments. Mean performance forspike length indicated that the longer spike (11.52 cm) was observed in T.D-1 at treatment four (T4=250 Gy) and treatment two (150 Gy) in ESW-9525 . Whereas, the shortest spike (10. 83 cm) wasobserved in the variety T.D-1 under control. The results regarding maximum mean performance ofspikelets spike-1 (24. 74) were recorded in ESW-9525 under treatment five at 300 Gy whereas the minimumvalue forspikelets spike-1 (18.76) were observed in T.D-1 under T1 (18.76) at 0 Gy and T4 at 250 Gy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicPlant Genetic and Mutation StudiesFrench-language works237,207