MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310038905 · doi:10.3390/f13121979

Effects of Water Deficit Stress on Growth Parameters of Robinia pseudoacacia L. Selected Clones under In Vitro Conditions

2022· article· en· W4310038905 on OpenAlexaff
Iwona Szyp-Borowska, Joanna Ukalska, Marzena Niemczyk, Tomasz Wojda, Barb R. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobiniaMannitolSucroseBiologyHorticultureWater stressBotanyFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid screening methods for drought-resistant genotypes are urgently needed in tree improvement programs in the face of current climate change. We used a plant tissue culture technique to assess the phenotypic response of three highly productive genotypes of Robinia pseudoacacia to water deficit induced by mannitol and sucrose in a range of water potentials from 0 MPa to −1.5 MPa in an eight-week experiment. Our study showed genotype-specific responses to induced drought stress, indicating the potential for tree improvement in productivity and stress tolerance. Considering that all plantlets were constantly supplied with carbon, from the medium during the drought-induced experiment, our results suggest that hydraulic failure rather than carbon starvation may be the main cause of drought-induced mortality. Furthermore, our results showed different metabolic pathways of sucrose depending on the concentration of sucrose in the medium and different responses to osmoticum (mannitol vs. sucrose) and its concentration among the clones tested. We believe, that for large-scale breeding programs wanting to select for drought-tolerant genotypes, the use of culture media containing 90 gL−1 mannitol or 90 gL−1 sucrose at an early selection stage should provide satisfactory screening results. However, lab-based screening should be supported by further field trials, preferably at multiple sites, to assess the long-term impact and phenotypic stability of the early selection strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207