Rhizobial survival and nodulation of chickpea as influenced by fungicide seed treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survival of Rhizobium ciceri on chickpea (Cicer arietinum cv. Myles) seed, treated separately with 1 of 4 commercial fungicides, i.e., Apron, Arrest 75W, Crown, or Captan, was examined under laboratory conditions using standard serial dilution and plate count techniques. The resulting effects of fungicide-Rhizobium interactions on nodulation, N2 fixation, and plant growth were assessed in a controlled environment. Fungicide treatment decreased the number of viable rhizobia on the seed. In general, the toxicity of the fungicides in terms of rhizobial viability increased in the following order: Control = Crown < Arrest = Apron < Captan. Although Crown had no effect on rhizobial viability assessed under laboratory conditions, it significantly reduced nodulation, percent N derived from the atmosphere (%Ndfa), and shoot dry matter. Seed treated with Arrest and Captan decreased nodule dry weight and %Ndfa, but only Arrest reduced dry matter yield. Apron had no effect on any of the parameters measured at the early pod-filling stage and was compatible with the chickpea inoculum used in this study.
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) | 0.001 | 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".