MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066032742 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.07.0209

A Greenhouse Method to Screen Brachiariagrass Genotypes for Aluminum Resistance and Root Vigor

2006· article· en· W2066032742 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Wenzl, Adriana Arango, Alba Lucía Chaves, María E. Buitrago, Gloria M. Patiño, John W. Miles, Idupulapati M. Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEdaphicBiologyBrachiariaResistance (ecology)Adaptation (eye)HybridAgronomyInterspecific competitionPastureHorticultureBotanySoil waterEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brachiaria species are widely sown on the infertile and Al‐toxic soils of neotropical savannas. Breeding programs seek to combine edaphic adaptation with other traits in interspecific hybrids. Edaphic adaptation is difficult to assess because it is only manifest in pasture persistence across several growing seasons. We developed and validated a solution‐culture technique that uses rooted vegetative propagules from mature plants to assess two key components of edaphic adaptation: root vigor and Al resistance. Root vigor was assessed by measuring growth of adventitious root systems in 200 μ M CaCl 2 (pH 4.2). Aluminum resistance was assessed by comparing root growth in this solution vs. root growth in an identical solution that also contained 200 μ M AlCl 3 The well‐adapted parent ( Brachiaria decumbens Stapf cv. Basilisk) was superior to the less‐adapted parent ( B. ruziziensis Germain & Evrad clone 44‐02), and both traits segregated as expected in a set of 44‐02 × Basilisk hybrids. A simplified version of this technique, which exclusively relies on visual inspection, has been implemented in our breeding program to facilitate progress toward edaphic adaptation.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animalsFrench-language works237,207