Seed Size and Its Influence on Growth-Related Agronomic Characters of Wheat Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to evaluate the influence of seed size on agronomic traits related to the growth of wheat plants. The seeds used in this experiment were collected in growing fields from the North of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The experimental design was randomized block design, with three wheat cultivars (Quartzo, Ametista and TBIO Sinuelo) × six seed lots (A; B; C; D; E; F) × five sieve diameters: I: (original sample without standardization, being that used by farmers (OS)), II: (seeds > 3.00 mm), III: (seeds from 2.5 to 2.99 mm), IV: (seeds from 2.0 to 2.49 mm) and V: (seeds < 2.0 mm), and the treatments were arranged in three replicates. The number of tillers per plant, height and spike insertion height are determined by intrinsic characteristics of the cultivar used, but extensive variations are attributed by lot fragmentation and seed size. The morphological and growth attributes of wheat are affected by considerable effects of seed size, and the decrease in these dimensions results in lower plants and reduced growth. The use of sieves for wheat seeds standardization allows the identification and selection of specific cultivars, lots and seed dimensions that may be essential for wheat crop performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".