MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766471013 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2017.03.0197

Minimum Daily Respiration of Maize: Relationship to Total Daily Respiratory Carbon Loss, and Effects of Growth Stage and Temperature

2017· article· en· W2766471013 on OpenAlexaff
J. A. Di Matteo, Katelyn E. Goldenhar, Helena Earl

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespirationAnimal scienceMorningRespiration rateBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Since crop respiration can only be measured in darkness, estimating total daily crop respiration ( R t ) requires knowledge of the quantitative relationship between daytime and nighttime respiration, including the predicted effect of temperature. We measured minimum daily (early morning) respiration ( R min ) in maize ( Zea mays L.) at four different temperatures during the night and at four different growth stages to estimate the respiration response to temperature. In a field experiment, respiration was measured every 2 to 5 h over a 24‐h period at five different growth stages to explore the relationship between R t and R min . The fractional rate change with 10°C temperature increment ( Q 10 ) decreased as the temperature increased. A single function was proposed to describe the respiration response to temperature across all growth stages. The minimum respiration of the day was reached between midnight and 6:00 AM, and R min represented 89 to 57% of R t . Modeling maize respiration assuming a constant Q 10 is inadvisable, since Q 10 varies with temperature. There was no effect of growth stage on Q 10 until 26°C; above this temperature, respiration increased only in older plants. The R t increased over the season as biomass accumulated, but the ratio of R min / R t reached its highest value at silking.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207