Mycorrhizal colonization and grain Cd concentration of field‐grown durum wheat in response to tillage, preceding crop and phosphorus fertilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A 3-year field trial was conducted to investigate the effect of agricultural management practices including tillage, preceding crop and phosphate fertilization on root colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi and grain cadmium (Cd) concentration of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.). The relationship between grain Cd and soil and plant variables was explored to determine the primary factors affecting grain Cd concentration. RESULTS: Mycorrhizal colonization of the roots was reduced by conventional tillage or when the preceding crop was canola (Brassica napus L.), compared to minimum tillage or when the preceding crop was flax (Linum usitatissimum L.). In contrast, grain Cd was not consistently affected by any treatment. Grain Cd was generally below the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of 100 microg Cd kg(-1) proposed by WHO. Grain Cd varied substantially from year to year, and could be predicted with 70% of variance accounted for by using the model: grain Cd concentration = - 321.9 + 44.5x ln(grain yield) + 0.26x soil DTPA-Cd + 182.5x soil electrical conductivity (EC)- 0.98x grain Zn concentration. CONCLUSIONS: These common agricultural management practices had no effect on grain Cd concentration in durum wheat though they impacted mycorrhizal colonization of roots. Grain yield and to a lesser extent soil conditions of EC and DTPA-Cd and grain Zn influenced grain Cd, whereas mycorrhizal colonization levels did not.
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".