MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030688750 · doi:10.3390/agronomy10060773

Characterizing Variation in Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Wheat Genotypes Using Proximal Canopy Sensing for Sustainable Wheat Production

2020· article· en· W3030688750 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed A. Naser, Raj Khosla, Louis Longchamps, Subash Dahal

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomyCanopyNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexIrrigationAridEvapotranspirationNitrogenEnvironmental scienceLeaf area indexBiologyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) for cereal production is marginal and is estimated to be about 33%. Remote sensing tools have tremendous potential for improving NUE in crops through efficient nitrogen management as well as the identification of high-NUE genotypes. The objectives of this study were (i) to identify and quantify the variation in NUE across 24 winter wheat genotypes (Triticum aestivum L.) and (ii) to determine if the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) could characterize the variability in NUE across wheat genotypes. This study was conducted in 2010 and 2011 in the semi-arid climate of Northeastern Colorado across dryland and irrigated conditions. Our results indicate significant variation in the NUE among genotypes across two irrigation conditions. We observed a strong relationship between the NDVI and NUE—as PFP (partial factor productivity) and PNB (partial nitrogen balance)—across the 24 wheat genotypes under dryland conditions (average R2 for PFP and PNB = 0.84) at Feekes growth stage 11.1, for site year II. However, poor association was observed under irrigated conditions (average R2 for PFP and PNB = 0.29) at Feekes growth stage 3 to 4 for site year II. This study demonstrates the potential and limitations of active canopy sensing to successfully characterize the variability in NUE across wheat genotypes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207