Improved experimental protocols to evaluate cold tolerance thresholds in <i>Miscanthus</i> and switchgrass rhizomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates protocols to evaluate cold tolerance thresholds for overwintering rhizomes of perennial bioenergy grasses. Protocols examined include the temperature at which ice formation occurs, cooling rate, incubation time at the treatment temperature, and the electrolyte leakage (EL) method to assess mortality thresholds. Using these protocols, we assessed low temperature injury in two genotypes of Miscanthus and two genotypes of lowland switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Ice formed near −1 C in the rhizomes cooled at 1 C h−1, but at variable temperatures at cooling rates of 3 and 5 C h−1. Rhizome temperature followed chamber temperature at a cooling rate of 1 C h−1, whereas at faster cooling rates, there was a lag in rhizome temperature that affected treatment exposure time. A 1 C h−1 cooling rate is thus suitable. In rhizomes incubated for <4 h at the treatment temperature, EL values were variable, while there was no change in EL when samples were incubated 4–20 h. A continuous, steady rate of cooling at 1 C h−1 demonstrated the Miscanthus and lowland switchgrass varieties exhibited lethal levels of electrolyte leakage below −6 C. Continuous cooling does not allow for subzero acclimation and reflects thermal tolerances of sampled tissue in situ. To allow for maximum acclimation at subzero temperatures, a prolonged, staged‐cooling procedure was adopted. This procedure showed diploid Miscanthus rhizomes could acclimate and adjust their tolerance limit to −12 C, while a triploid Illinois line showed little acclimation and was still killed below −6 C.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".