MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014704099 · doi:10.1021/jf901516h

Brassicaceae Tissues as Inhibitors of Nitrification in Soil

2009· article· en· W2014704099 on OpenAlexaff
P. D. Brown, Matthew J. Morra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlucosinolateBrassicaceaeSinapisBrassicaErucaNitrificationWhite mustardSoil waterChemistryBotanyAmmoniumMyrosinaseBiologyAgronomyNitrogenEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brassicaceae crops often produce an unexplained increase in plant-available soil N possibly related to bioactive compounds produced from glucosinolates present in the tissues. Our objective was to determine if glucosinolate-containing tissues inhibit nitrification, thereby potentially explaining this observation. Ammonium, NO(2)(-), and NO(3)(-) N were measured in soils amended with Brassicaceae ( Isatis tinctoria L., Brassica napus L., Brassica juncea L., and Sinapis alba L.) tissues containing different glucosinolate types and concentrations or Kentucky bluegrass ( Poa pratensis L.) residues with equivalent C/N ratios as the Brassicaceae samples. There was greater accumulation of NH(4)(+) N in soils amended with tissues containing high glucosinolate concentrations as compared to soils amended with tissues containing no or low glucosinolate concentrations. Nitrite N was detected only in soils amended with Brassicaceae tissues having the highest glucosinolate concentrations. The positive correlation of both NH(4)(+) and NO(2)(-) N accumulation with the glucosinolate concentration indicates the participation of glucosinolate hydrolysis products in nitrification inhibition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations55
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207