Inherent responses to root-zone salinity in nine alfalfa populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steppuhn, H., Acharya, S. N., Iwaasa, A. D., Gruber, M. and Miller, D. R. 2012. Inherent responses to root-zone salinity in nine alfalfa populations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 235–248. Alfalfa productivity can be enhanced by growing crops from cultivars tolerant of root-zone salinity. Rangelander, Keho, Bridgeview, Halo, CW054038, CW064027, Rugged, Bullseye and TS4002 alfalfa plants (respectively designated Ra, Ke, Br, Ha, C8, C7, Ru, Bu and T4) were grown in sand tanks irrigated with nutrient-sulphate solutions averaging 1.53 (nutrients only), 8.03 and 15.61 dS m−1in electrical conductivity. Except for Br and C7, seedlings emerged equally under the 1.5 and 8.0 dS m−1treatments, but decreased in the 15.6 dS m−1treatment by percentages ranging from 3.1 through 29.5. Average shoot biomass among the populations respectively decreased by 49.6, 43.6 and 37.6% in the 1st, 1st+2nd, and 1st+2nd+3rd harvest-cuts as salinity increased from 1.5 to 8.0 dS m−1and by 80.1, 73.2 and 67.1% from 1.5 to 15.6 dS m−1. At 1.5 dS m−1, the C7 plants consistently produced more shoot biomass than the T4, Bu, Ha, Ru, Ra, or Ke plants. At 8 dS m−1, the relative yields of the Ha plants (scaled by their 1.5 dS m−1production) exceeded those from the other populations, although the Ha plants produced no greater actual shoot biomass than the C7 or the C8 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".