MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1775592318 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2015-0096

Nutrients alleviate the deleterious effect of salinity on germination and early seedling growth of the psammophytic grass <i>Elymus farctus</i>

2015· article· en· W1775592318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Taha Mohamed El-Katony, Abdel‐Hamid A. Khedr, Naser Gadallah Soliman

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationSalinityRadicleBiologyDistilled waterSeedlingNutrientNitrateElongationAmmoniumAgronomyBotanyHorticultureChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elymus farctus L. is a perennial grass, dominating the Mediterranean coastal sands of Egypt. Germination of E. farctus seeds was monitored under the impact of NaCl levels up to 300 mmol·L −1 , either in water or in nutrient solution containing nitrogen in the form of ammonium, nitrate, or ammonium nitrate. Seed germination was more salt tolerant than extension of embryonic axis, and radicle elongation was more salt tolerant than plumule elongation. NaCl applied in water sharply reduced germinability beyond a threshold of 55 mmol·L −1 , but progressively inhibited embryonic axis elongation. Presence of nutrients alleviated the effect of salinity, particularly if nitrogen was in the form of nitrate. The effect of salinity on speed, uniformity, and synchrony of germination was in general modulated by the presence of nutrients. Salt-treated seeds readily recovered from stress when moved to distilled water, without a lag period, and with high speed, uniformity, and synchrony of germination but with a lower recovery percentage compared with the germination of fresh seeds in distilled water, which might point to a combination of osmotic and specific ion effects of salinity on seed germination.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207