MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415513570 · doi:10.5376/tgg.2025.16.0017

Effects of Irrigation Frequency on Dry Matter Accumulation and Water Use Efficiency of Wheat

2025· article· W4415513570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yali Wang, Rugang Xu, Zhonghui He

Bibliographic record

VenueTriticeae Genomics and Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationWater-use efficiencyBiomass (ecology)Dry matterDeficit irrigationWater useEvapotranspirationProductivityAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheat ( Triticum aestivum  L.) is a globally essential cereal crop whose productivity is closely linked to water availability, particularly in water-limited regions. This study explores the effects of different irrigation frequencies on dry matter accumulation and water use efficiency (WUE) in wheat cultivation. We examined the physiological basis of biomass accumulation and analyzed how irrigation intervals influence partitioning among organs and developmental stage-specific responses. Further, we evaluated WUE in relation to irrigation frequency, considering agronomic implications and the interplay of root development, leaf structure, and molecular signaling pathways. A case study from a semi-arid wheat-growing region provided field-based insights into the impacts of irrigation frequency on yield, soil health, and practical outcomes. Our analysis highlights the trade-offs between water input and biomass productivity, emphasizing the importance of optimized irrigation scheduling. We conclude that moderate irrigation intervals can enhance WUE without severely compromising yield, though outcomes depend on local climate and soil conditions. Future research should focus on site-specific strategies using precision agriculture to improve sustainability under climate variability.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTriticeae Genomics and GeneticsSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207