MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W628729805

Effect of water availability and genetic diversity on flowering phenology, synchrony, and reproductive investment in maize.

2014· article· en· W628729805 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin L. Mercer, Lesley G. Campbell, Jing Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueMaydica · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhenologyAgronomyCultivarAnthesisCropInflorescencePlant reproductive morphologyHybridPollinationFructificationOpen pollinationDrought toleranceHorticulturePollenBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop yield of monoecious species like maize (Zea mays) relies on simultaneous flowering of male and female inflorescences to ensure pollination. Yet productivity may be reduced if environmental conditions reduce floral synchrony or if plants within a field do not overlap sufficiently in flowering periods. We experimentally manipulated water availability and measured its effect on flowering, including the anthesis-silking interval (ASI) and crop yield components in open-pollinated (OP) and hybrid corn cultivars. Although watering treatments did not affect traits, we did detected cultivar-specific phenological and yield responses. Hybrid plants were earlier to silk than OP plants, which tasseled for longer, had a longer ASI, and lower yield components. The less diverse hybrids also expressed less variation in ASI. We suspect other methods for reducing moisture in the field, including earlier moisture removal, might have better elicited a biological response in maize. Nevertheless, because shorter ASI is genetically correlated with increased drought tolerance, we predict this hybrid may be more resilient than the OP under more extreme drought scenarios. Consideration for how genetic diversity found in OP varieties and crop landraces may respond to variation in moisture availability apparent with climate change may be warranted.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaydicaSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207