Populations, diversity and identities of bacterial endophytes in potato (<i>Solanum tuberosum</i> L.) cropping systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pageni, B. B., Lupwayi, N. Z., Larney, F. J., Kawchuk, L. M. and Gan, Y. 2013. Populations, diversity and identities of bacterial endophytes in potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) cropping systems. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 1125–1142. Most plants host endophytic bacteria, but their identities and functions are usually unknown. Bacterial endophytes associated with potato grown after dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) or wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) were isolated, quantified and identified in a field study that compared crop rotations (3 to 6 yr in length) and soil management (CONV, conventional; CONS, conservation) for dry bean, potato, sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and spring wheat. Populations of culturable endophytes ranged from 2.83×103 to 7.65×103 colony-forming units g−1 of root dry matter. The populations and diversity of the endophytes were greater with CONS than CONV soil management, and tended to be greater in longer than shorter rotations. The community structures of the endophytes were different between CONV and CONS soil management. A terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism assay targeting the 16S rRNA gene, and its sequencing, showed that CONS management systems contained more Proteobacteria than CONV management systems, and vice-versa for Acidobacteria. Bacteriodetes were found only in long CONS rotations. This phylogenetic characterization of potato endophytes is important for further studies on their effects on the host plants.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".