MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genotypic Differences in Root Hair Deformation and Subsequent Nodulation for Red Clover under Different Additions of Starter N Fertilization

2012· article· en· W1958653370 on OpenAlexaff
Malinda S. Thilakarathna, Y. A. Papadopoulos, Sherry Fillmore, Balakrishnan Prithiviraj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agronomy and Crop Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCultivarRed CloverMicrobial inoculantLegumeRhizobiaAgronomyInoculationHorticultureNitrogen fixationBotanyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Red clover cultivars, including diploid and tetraploid, are commonly used in legume‐based pasture mixtures. However, information on nodulation under different starter N regimens is limited. We hypothesized that there is genetic variability among different red clover cultivars for nodulation. A root hair deformation assay was conducted using three diploid (AC Christie, Tapani and CRS15) and three tetraploid (Tempus, CRS18 and CRS39) red clover cultivars by inoculating them with Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii . Nodulation and morphological characteristics of two selected red clover cultivars, AC Christie and Tempus, were determined under five starter N concentrations (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8 and 1.6 mg per plant). Inoculation with rhizobia increased root hair deformation with significant interaction across cultivars. Nodulation was delayed under high starter N concentrations, and genotypic differences were evident for days‐to‐nodule initiation. There was a positive quadratic response to starter N for AC Christie and a negative quadratic response for Tempus for nodulation. Tempus had more active nodules (92 %) than AC Christie (73 %). The genetic variability of red clover cultivars should be considered in N fixation studies and their response to availability of initial N.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agronomy and Crop ScienceSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207