MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220732167 · doi:10.3390/plants11070871

Photoperiod Affects Node Appearance Rate and Flowering in Early Maturing Soybean

2022· article· en· W4220732167 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathaniel W. W. Ort, Malcolm J. Morrison, Elroy R. Cober, Bahram Samanfar, Yvonne Lawley

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Field Crop Research AllianceWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsphotoperiodismCultivarBiologyFrost (temperature)HorticultureAgronomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(L.) Merr.) with long days increasing the time to flowering. Early flowering cultivars have been developed from breeding programs for environments with long photoperiods; however, this effect is challenging to isolate in field experiments because of other environmental influences. Our experiment examined the effect of photoperiod on the node appearance rate and time to flower for 13 early maturing soybean cultivars ranging in maturity group (MG) between 000.9 and 1.3. Growth chambers were programmed to 14, 15, 16, and 17 h photoperiods and temperature was kept at 25 °C. The date of emergence and main stem node appearance were recorded until flowering. The node appearance rate was slowest for the first node and increased thereafter. All cultivars required more time to flowering in the longer photoperiod treatments and the later rated MG had the greatest sensitivity to photoperiod. A delay in time to flower from a longer photoperiod can delay maturity and expose the crop to fall frost that can reduce seed yield and quality. Understanding and documentation of soybean photoperiod sensitivity will help plant breeders develop suitable cultivars for environments with long photoperiods.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207