MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027225150 · doi:10.1093/jxb/eraa245

The physiology of drought stress in grapevine: towards an integrative definition of drought tolerance

2020· review· en· W3027225150 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory A. Gambetta, José Herrera, Silvina Dayer, Quishuo Feng, Uri Hochberg, Simone D. Castellarin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDrought toleranceAgricultureClimate changeContext (archaeology)CropSustainabilityDrought stressBiologyAgronomyCrop yieldIrrigationLimitingAgroforestryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water availability is arguably the most important environmental factor limiting crop growth and productivity. Erratic precipitation patterns and increased temperatures resulting from climate change will likely make drought events more frequent in many regions, increasing the demand on freshwater resources and creating major challenges for agriculture. Addressing these challenges through increased irrigation is not always a sustainable solution so there is a growing need to identify and/or breed drought-tolerant crop varieties in order to maintain sustainability in the context of climate change. Grapevine (Vitis vinifera), a major fruit crop of economic importance, has emerged as a model perennial fruit crop for the study of drought tolerance. This review synthesizes the most recent results on grapevine drought responses, the impact of water deficit on fruit yield and composition, and the identification of drought-tolerant varieties. Given the existing gaps in our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying grapevine drought responses, we aim to answer the following question: how can we move towards a more integrative definition of grapevine drought tolerance?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations377
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207