Crop lodging, pod fertility and yield formation in canola under varying degrees of short‐term heat stress during flowering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There has been little research on crop lodging and yield determination in response to varying degrees of heat stress in canola. This research aimed to examine root morphology, pod fertility, seed yield and crop lodging of two canola genotypes subjected to normal temperature (23/17°C, light/dark, as CK), and three elevated temperature regimes imposed at flowering for a short term (10 days), namely CK+2 (25.0/22.0°C, light/dark), CK+4 (27.0/24.0°C) and CK+6 (29.0/26.0°C), in a controlled growth facility. Elevated temperature treatment, CK+4 and CK+6, displayed a significant adverse effect on seed yield and stem lodging. Compared to the CK, a significant yield loss of 35.6% and 48.7% in CK+4 and CK+6, respectively, was mainly due to poor pod fertility. This was evident from the smaller number of total filled pods (−21% in the CK+4 and −25% in the CK+6), low success ratio of pod developed (−25%, CK+4 and −29%, CK+6) and poor pollen viability (−36%, CK+4 and −50%, CK+6), averaged across both genotypes. Lateral root development was sensitive to the elevated temperature treatment, showing significant reductions in the lateral root morphology (8.0%–28.5%), while the taproot was relatively tolerant to the elevated temperature stress. A strong relationship between root electrical capacitance and lateral root morphology ( R 2 > .74**) indicates that electrical measurements could be used as a non‐destructive method for evaluating root parameters under elevated temperatures. Higher risk of stem lodging (21.4% lower stem safety factor) compared to the CK was evident under severe elevated temperature stress, as ascribed from the reduced stem bending strength that was caused by the deteriorating stem mechanical properties such as decreased flexural rigidity and weakened vascular bundle size (i.e. stunted fibre cell, and thinned size of fibre wall, deteriorated secondary xylem and smaller secondary phloem). These results were further verified by the principal component analysis and structural equation model. The root lodging risk was not influenced by the elevated temperature regime, primarily due to the unaffected anchorage strength and height of the centre of gravity. This information will be useful in improving lodging resistance and alleviating the related impact of heat stress in canola.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".