Nitrogen remobilization and post-anthesis nitrogen uptake in relation to elevated grain protein concentration in durum wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suprayogi, Y., Clarke, J. M., Bueckert, R., Clarke, F. R. and Pozniak, C. J. 2011. Nitrogen remobilization and post-anthesis nitrogen uptake in relation to elevated grain protein concentration in durum wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 273-282. Grain protein concentration is an important end-use suitability factor in durum wheat [Triticum turgidum L. ssp. durum (Desf.) Husn.] through its effect on cooking quality. Genetic differences in grain protein concentration are exploited in Canadian durum breeding programs, but the physiological basis of these differences remains unknown. Eighteen durum genotypes varying in grain protein concentration were grown at three pre-selected Saskatchewan locations that differ for soil nitrogen (N). These included check cultivars and six low- and six high-protein doubled haploid (DH) selections from the cross DT695×Strongfield (low- by high-protein). Plants were sampled at the anthesis, milk, dough and physiological maturity developmental stages, and dry matter and N concentration of plant parts were determined. The high-protein selections expressed 0.6 to 1.1 percentage units higher grain protein concentration than the low selections over the three environments (P<0.05), but yielded less grain than the low selections in two of the three environments. Remobilization of N from vegetative organs to grain varied with environment and accounted for 73 to 98% of grain N, the remainder made up from post-anthesis N uptake. The high-protein selections showed greater post-anthesis N uptake than the low selections in two of three environments (P<0.01), but lower N remobilization from vegetative organs to the grain than the low selections in the same environments (P<0.05). Subtle differences in N and dry matter partitioning accounted for the observed differences in grain protein concentration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".