The stage sensitivity of short‐term heat stress to lodging‐resistant traits and yield determination in canola (<i>Brassica napus</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the expected increase of abiotic stress under global climate change, significant research has been devoted to how abiotic stress will affect crop production. To date, there has been little research on the stage sensitivity of short‐term heat stress to crop lodging and yield determination in canola. This research was conducted in a controlled growth facility and aimed to examine root morphology, pod fertility, seed yield and crop lodging of two contrasting canola genotypes subjected to a short‐term heat stress (27.0/24.3°C, light/dark), imposed respectively at three growth stages, rosette vegetative stage (RVHT), early flowering stage (EFHT) and late flowering stage (LFHT), in comparison with non‐stressed control (CK) (23/17°C). The results demonstrate that heat stress imposed at RVHT and LFHT was less detrimental to seed yield and lodging resistance. However, EFHT showed significant adverse effects on both, which was further confirmed by redundancy analysis (RDA) and structural equation modelling (SEM). Compared with the CK, EFHT resulted in a yield loss of 43%, which was mainly due to poor pod fertility, less number of filled pods (−28%), decreased pollen viability (−38%) and a lower success ratio of filled pods (−29%). The taproot was found to be relatively tolerant to heat stress, but lateral roots were sensitive to heat stress at EFHT and LFHT. Root capacitance could be used as a non‐destructive method for evaluating lateral root morphology. Compared with the CK, EFHT displayed a high risk of stem lodging, as indicated by a 27% lower safety factor. This was mainly attributed to the reduced stem bending strength that was caused by the deterioration of stem mechanical properties under EFHT, as illustrated by SEM. Root lodging resistance was not altered by any stages of short‐term heat stress, as the taproot remained stable.
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".