Effect of Foliar Application of Chitin and Chitosan Oligosaccharides on Photosynthesis of Maize and Soybean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the first day after foliar application, chitosan pentamer (CH5) and chitin pentamer (CHIT5) decreased net photosynthetic rate (PN) of soybean and maize, however, on subsequent days there was an increase in PN in some treatments. CH5 caused an increase in maize PN on day 3 at 10-5 and 10-7 M; the increases were 18 and 10 % over the control plants. This increase was correlated with increases in stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration rate (E), while the intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) was not different from the control plants. PN of soybean plants did not differ from the control plants except for treatment CH5 (10-7 M) which caused an 8 % increase on day 2, along with increased gs, E, and Ci. On days 5 and 6 the CHIT5 treatment caused a 6-8 % increase in PN of maize, which was accompanied by increases in gs, E, and Ci. However, there was no such increase for soybean plants treated with CHIT5. In general, foliar application of high molecular mass chitin (CHH) resulted in decreased PN, particularly for 0.010 % treated plants, both in maize and soybean. Foliar applications of chitosan and chitin oligomers did not affect (p > 0.05) maize or soybean height, root length, leaf area, shoot or root or total dry mass.
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".