Emergence, height, and yield of canola and barley grown in saline root zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The salinity tolerance of a crop relates to its inherent ability to yield economic product as root-zone salinity increases. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) ranks as one of the more salt-tolerant of the annual cereal grain crops, but producers seek a salt-resistant, non-cereal grain crop as an agronomic alternative for saline fields. Could canola (Brassica napus L.) serve as this alternative? Two greenhouse tests were conducted to determine the inherent crop responses of three canola cultivars (Quantum, Hyola 401, InVigor 2573) to saline rooting media compared with that of Harrington barley. These crops were grown in sand tanks flushed four times daily with solutions dominated either by chlorides with salt concentrations measuring from 1.4 to 32 dS m-1 or by sulphates from 1.6 to 27 dS m-1 . In the Cl-test, the rate of emergence and the emergence time of the Quantum plants lagged those for Hyola and Harrington. In the SO4-test, these measures for the InVigor plants equalled those for the Hyola, but lagged those for Harrington. Relative crop height at harvest did not differ among the test crops in either test. Crop grain yields relative to the salt-free production analysed by the modified-discount equation resulted in Cl-solution tolerance indices of 11.0, 14.3, and 12.6 for Harrington, Hyola, and Quantum and SO4-solution indices of 11.4, 15.6, and 16.7 for Harrington, Hyola, and InVigor, respectively. Covariance analyses based on paired t-tests confirmed the conclusion that the salinity tolerance of the canola cultivars equalled that of Harrington barley. Key words: Salt tolerance, salt resistance, salinity, canola, barley, abiotic crop-stress
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 | 0.001 | 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".