MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107574550 · doi:10.4141/p03-087

Endophytic rhizobia in barley, wheat and canola roots

2004· article· en· W2107574550 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Newton Z. Lupwayi, George W. Clayton, K.G. Hanson, W. A. Rice, V. O. Biederbeck

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsMillar College of the BibleAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAlberta Pulse Growers Commission
KeywordsRhizobiaBiologyMonocultureAgronomySativumCanolaRhizosphereCropHordeum vulgareInoculationNitrogen fixationHorticulturePoaceaeBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endophytic rhizobia have been shown to improve the nutrition of nonlegume crops. The objective of this work was to investigate the effects of field pea (Pisum sativum)-based crop rotations on endophytic rhizobia in roots of cereal and oilseed crops. Barley (Hordeum vulgare), wheat (Triticum aestivum) and canola (Brassica rapa) were each grown (a) following inoculated peas, (b) following uninoculated peas or (c) in monoculture. At flag-leaf or flowering growth stage, populations of endophytic rhizobia were usually in the order: crop following uninoculated peas (up to 7244 cells g -1 root DM) > crop following inoculated peas (up to 1660 cells g -1 root DM) > crop grown in monoculture (< 10 cells g -1 root DM). At one of three sites, there were significant positive correlations between endophytic rhizobia and crop N and yield. Populations of rhizobia in bulk soil, rhizosphere, or rhizoplane of nonlegume roots were greater where nonlegume crops were preceded by peas (inoculated or uninoculated) than where they were grown in monoculture. Significant positive correlations between populations of these rhizobia outside roots and crop N or yields were observed at each site. Key words: Crop rotation, inoculation, nitrogen fixation, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), rhizosphere

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations82
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207