Emergence, height, grain yield and oil content of camelina and canola grown in saline media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crops of CS15 camelina and InVigor 9590 canola, grown under field conditions in Canada’s Salinity Tolerance Testing Facility, were evaluated for plant emergence, height, shoot biomass, grain yield, oil content and composition. The crops were seeded directly into sand tanks flushed four times daily with hydroponics consisting of nutrients and salts ranging in salinity from negligible to severe. Sulphate-based solutions averaging 1.4 (nutrients only), 3.0, 6.0, 10.0, 14.7, 19.9, and 27.0 dS m-1 in electrical conductivity (ECsol) resulted in respective cumulative emergence of 99.0 to 42.1% for the camelina and 99.3 to 79.6% for the canola and showed statistical differences only at the two highest salinity treatments. Plant height differences between the camelina and the canola increased as salinity increased: from 16% at 1.4 dS m-1 to 60% at 19.9 dS m-1. Grain yields under salinity relative to the salt-free yield decreased more for the camelina than for the canola at all ECsol-levels. The salinity tolerance index based on the ECsol -value at 50% of the maximum grain yield indicated that the camelina registered less than half (7.4) of that for the canola (18.0). The percentage oil content of the canola oilseed averaged 40% until salinity exceeded 20 dS m-1, while that of the camelina averaged 35% until 10 dS m-1, before declining. Key words: Camelina sativa, false flax, salinity tolerance, salt resistance, Brassica napus, canola
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".