A Greenhouse Method to Screen Brachiariagrass Genotypes for Aluminum Resistance and Root Vigor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 μM CaCl2 (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 μM AlCl3 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".