Leaf Pigments, Surface Wax and Spectral Vegetation Indices for Heat Stress Resistance in Pea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pea is a grain legume crop commonly grown in semi-arid temperate regions. Pea is susceptible to heat stress that affects development and reduces yield. Leaf pigments and surface wax in a crop canopy make the primary interaction with the environment and can impact plant response to environmental stress. Vegetation indices can be used to indirectly assess canopy performance in regard to pigment, biomass, and water content to indicate overall plant stress. Our objectives were to investigate the contribution of leaf pigments and surface wax to heat avoidance in pea canopies, and their associations with spectral vegetation indices. Canopies represented by 24 pea cultivars varying in leaf traits were tested in field trials across six environments with three stress levels in western Canada. Compared with the control non-stress environments, heat stress reduced leaf lamina and petiole chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoid concentrations by 18–35%, and increased leaf lamina chlorophyll a/b ratio, anthocyanin and wax concentrations by 24–28%. Generally, greater leaf pigment and wax concentrations were associated with cooler canopy temperature and high heat tolerance index (HTI) values. Upright cultivars had higher HTI values, whereas the lowest HTI was associated with normal leafed vining cultivars. Vegetation indices, including photochemical reflectance index (PRI), green normalized vegetation index (GNDVI), normalized pigment chlorophyll ratio index (NPCI), and water band index (WBI), had strong correlations with HTI and with heat avoidance traits. This study highlights the contribution of pigments and wax as heat avoidance traits in crop canopies, and the potential application of spectral measurements for selecting genotypes with more heat resistant vegetation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".