Variation in total root length and root diameter of wild and cultivated lentil grown under drought and re-watered conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lentil is now an integral part of prairie cropping systems. Climate forecasts point to variable and increased drought frequency, putting lentil production in jeopardy. Future lentil genotypes will require root systems that can extract more water under drought conditions. This study focuses on root diameter and root tip number, traits known to play an important role in water uptake during drought. We compared the total root length (TRL) in three soil horizons of both wild and cultivated lentil genotypes for three root diameter classes when plants were grown under moderate or severe drought, and when re-watered after exposure to moderate drought conditions. Our study demonstrates that roots of both wild and cultivated lentil genotypes can be categorized into very fine, fine and small diameter classes. Some wild lentil genotypes had significantly higher TRL in the B and C soil horizons when grown under severe or moderate drought and therefore, could act as resources for the transfer of root traits to cultivated lentil genotypes. Further evaluations focused on the root systems of interspecific recombinant inbred lines under drought conditions will be required to determine whether these traits are heritable.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".