MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109702660 · doi:10.1139/b07-129

Atmospheric nitrogen dioxide at ambient levels stimulates growth and development of horticultural plants

2008· article· en· W2109702660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suaad E.H. Adam, Jun Shigeto, Atsushi Sakamoto, Misa Takahashi, Hiromichi Morikawa

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactucaHelianthus annuusCucumisSunflowerBiologyCucurbita moschataBotanyHydroponicsShootBiomass (ecology)NitrogenHorticulturePhosphorusAgronomyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently discovered that atmospheric nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) at ambient levels acts as a signal to Nicotiana plumbaginifolia Viviani, causing these plants to double both their biomass and all of the cell contents. Herein, we addressed whether this effect of NO 2 is also observed in various horticultural plants. Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa L.), sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L.), cucumber ( Cucumis sativus L.), and pumpkin ( Cucurbita moschata Duch. ex Lam.) were grown with 50, 200, 100, and 200 µL·L –1 , respectively, of air supplemented with stable isotope-labelled ( 15 N) NO 2 , for 5−6 weeks. Control plants were grown without NO 2 (<5 µL·L –1 ). All plants were irrigated with nonlabelled nitrate. The presence of NO 2 doubled both the aboveground and belowground biomass in sunflowers compared with their growth in the absence of NO 2 , whereas lettuce, cucumber, and pumpkin doubled in aboveground biomass only. Contents per shoot of carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) were almost doubled during the “NO 2 -enhanced” growth in lettuce, but not in other plants. Mass spectrometry analysis of 15 N/ 14 N indicated that only a minor proportion (0.2%–14%) of total plant N was derived from NO 2 , implying that exogenous NO 2 acts as a signal rather than a significant nutrient source in horticultural plants.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207