Evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faye, A., Dalpé, Y., Ndung'u-Magiroi, K., Jefwa, J., Ndoye, I., Diouf, M. and Lesueur, D. 2013. Evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 1201–1208. In order to improve the use of commercial inoculants, 12 arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculants were evaluated in a two-step experiment under greenhouse conditions using maize. First, commercial mycorrhizal inoculants were propagated in a trap pot culture experiment under sterilized sand to evaluate their potential for maize (Zea may L.) root colonization as compared with an indigenous soil inoculum and to survey the AMF species present in the products. Three inoculants significantly increased root colonization levels compared with a soil inoculum. Instead of 12 declared AMF species, 13 fungal strains were extracted from the pot culture survey, including five undeclared species, while four declared species did not produce spores. In a second experiment, commercial products were inoculated into soil to assess their impact on maize growth and yield. Six weeks after planting, seven inoculants increased root colonization levels compared with control soil, while only three inoculants increased slightly the shoot biomass of maize plants. These experiments highlight the need to pre-evaluate commercial mycorrhizal inoculants on a selected crop and regional soil before launching large-scale field use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".