MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966023753 · doi:10.3390/plants8080250

Soybean Yield and Seed Composition Changes in Response to Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration in Short-Season Canada

2019· article· en· W2966023753 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elroy R. Cober, Malcolm J. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsPhenologyCultivarYield (engineering)PrecipitationGrowing seasonAgronomyBiologyAnimal scienceHorticultureGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1993, we have conducted trials with the same set of old to newer soybean cultivars to determine the impact of plant breeding on seed yield, physiological and agronomic characteristics, and seed composition. Since 1993, global atmospheric [CO2] increased by 47 ppm. The objective of our current analysis with this data set was to determine if there were changes in soybean seed yield, quality or phenology attributable to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (eCO2), temperature or precipitation. Additionally, we estimated genetic gain annually. Over 23 years, there was a significant increase in atmospheric [CO2] but not in-season average maximum or minimum temperatures, or average in-season precipitation. Seed yield was increased significantly by eCO2, higher precipitation and higher minimum temperatures during flowering and podding. Yield decreased with higher minimum temperatures during vegetative growth and seed filling. Seed oil and also seed protein plus oil concentrations were both reduced with eCO2. Phenology has also changed, with soybean cultivars spending less time in vegetative growth, while time to maturity remained constant. Over the 23 years of the study, genetic improvement rates decreased as [CO2] increased. Newer cultivars are not better adapted to eCO2 and soybean breeders may need to intentionally select for favourable responses to eCO2 in the future.

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)0.000
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 score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207