MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134091087 · doi:10.22067/jcesc.2020.37139.0

Evaluation of Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics of New Quinoa Genotypes in Spring Cultivation at Karaj

2020· article· en· W3134091087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpring (device)AgronomyGenotypeBiologyEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild) is native to the Andean region of South America. Various genotypes of quinoa have a high diversity regarding different traits such as sensitivity to daylength, seed size and color, nutritional and anti - nutritional value of seeds, tolerance to biological and non - nutritional stresses. Considering the development goals of the quinoa, the need for new genotypes is very tangible. Fortunately, new genotypes of quinoa have become available that have not been studied domestically. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of these genotypes and to study their compatibility with spring cultivation in Karaj region. The results of this study provide the basis for deciding the next steps of research and development on these genotypes. Materials and Methods In this study, 13 new genotypes of quinoa including Atlas, EQ 101, EQ 102, EQ103, EQ104, EQ105, EQ106, Amiralla Marangani, Amiralla Sacaca, Blanka Dejunine, Kancolla, Salsada Inia and Rosada De Huncaya, have been studied in a randomized complete block design with three replications for two years (2018-2019) at Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj. Genotypes with the prefix EQ were obtained from Canada, Atlas genotype from the Netherlands and the rest of the genotypes from Peru. Each plot consisted of three rows with 500 cm length and 60 cm × 10 cm of plant density. The distances between replications and planting plots per replication were 180 cm and 200 cm. Data were analyzed using SAS software and means were compared using the least significant difference (LSD) at the 5% level (P = 0.05). Results and Discussion The results showed that all traits except days to germination were significantly affected by genotype. However, plant height, inflorescence length, stem diameter, oil percentage and days to maturity did not affect by genotype interaction per year. The effect of year was also significant for grain yield, days to pollination, saponin content and oil percentage. Different origin (from Peru, Canada and the Netherlands) and different morphological characteristics of the studied genotypes caused significant differences in different traits. The EQ101 genotype, showed the highest grain yield and plant height, highest protein content and the lowest amount of saponin. While Marangani genotype with an average yield of 796.78 kg ha-1 had the lowest yield. EQ103 was the earliest and Marangani, Kancolla, Rosada and Salsada genotype were the late genotypes, respectively. On the other hand, EQ105 genotype revealed the highest seed oil content. Marangani genotype had the thickest shoot among all genotypes. Canadian Genotypes have lower levels of saponin than Peruvian genotypes. EQ101 with saponin content of 0.48 mg g-1 (0.04%) had the lowest saponin content and among the studied genotypes in this study, it is the only genotype that belong to sweet quinoa cultivars. Conclusions The studied genotypes demonstrated significant diversity and differences in all studied traits. In some traits, the difference between the two groups of genotypes (Canadian or Peruvian) was quite obvious. In this study all quinoa genotypes were compatible with spring cultivation in Karaj region. Genotypes compatible with spring (long day) cultivation usually do not have a problem with summer and autumn cultivation and will most likely be cultivated in all seasons and regions of the country.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.519
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.042 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207