MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124040167 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erp175

ABA inhibits germination but not dormancy release in mature imbibed seeds of Lolium rigidum Gaud.

2009· article· en· W2124040167 on OpenAlexaff
Danica E. Goggin, Kathryn J. Steadman, R. J. Neil Emery, Scott C. Farrow, Roberto L. Benech‐Arnold, Stephen B. Powles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsLolium rigidumGerminationDormancyAbscisic acidStratification (seeds)GibberellinSeed dormancyBiologyPhytochromeBotanyWeedRed lightBiochemistryHerbicide resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dormancy release in imbibed annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaud.) seeds is promoted in the dark but inhibited in the light. The role of abscisic acid (ABA) in inhibition of dormancy release was found to be negligible, compared with its subsequent effect on germination of dormant and non-dormant seeds. Inhibitors of ABA metabolism had the expected effects on seed germination but did not influence ABA concentration, suggesting that they act upon other (unknown) factors regulating dormancy. Although gibberellin (GA) synthesis was required for germination, the influence of exogenous GA on both germination and dormancy release was minor or non-existent. Embryo ABA concentration was the same following treatments to promote (dark stratification) and inhibit (light stratification) dormancy release; exogenous ABA had no effect on this process. However, the sensitivity of dark-stratified seeds to ABA supplied during germination was lower than that of light-stratified seeds. Therefore, although ABA definitely plays a role in the germination of annual ryegrass seeds, it is not the major factor mediating inhibition of dormancy release in imbibed seeds.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations47
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207