Leaf hydration status under drought is predominantly linked to stomatal regulation and leaf roll but not osmotic adjustment in Canadian hard red spring wheat ( <i>Triticum aestivum</i> ) cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT For wheat ( Triticum aestivum ), sustained crop yield at limited soil water has been linked to osmotic adjustment (OA) as one of the main drivers to minimize drought-induced reductions in leaf hydration status and growth. Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) cultivars are typically grown in rainfed areas in northern regions with milder climates, but ongoing climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of drought event questioning how successful they are in tolerating drought. The extent of OA and its relation to stomatal behavior, leaf roll, and kernel development under periods of drought remain elusive for CWRS. For several commercially used Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat cultivars (‘Superb’, ‘Stettler’, ‘AAC Viewfield’), OA was not found to be a mechanism contributing to drought tolerance. In contrast, we found that sustained kernel weight during periods of relatively low soil water content was linked to ‘tight’ stomatal behavior (i.e., efficient transition from onset to full stomatal closure) and ‘early’ leaf roll (i.e., reductions in flag leaf width). Moreover, leaf hydration status (Θ RWC ) marked the onset of drought-induced losses in kernel weight in all three cultivars. In conclusion, CWRS wheat lacks OA but leaf stomatal behavior and leaf rolling aid in securing leaf hydration status and kernel weight under drought. One-sentence summary Select wheat cultivars maintain leaf hydration status and yield by early leaf roll and rapid stomatal closure in the absence of osmotic adjustment and isohydric behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".