MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130149463 · doi:10.1139/x04-026

Loblolly pine seedling growth after inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and ozone exposure

2004· article· en· W2130149463 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B L Estes, Scott A. Enebak, A. H. Chappelka

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAuburn University
KeywordsRhizobacteriaSeedlingOzoneHorticultureInoculationPaenibacillus polymyxaBiomass (ecology)GerminationBotanyChemistryBiologyAgronomyBacteriaRhizosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria promote plant growth and induce biocontrol, but are affected by soil type, water stress, microbial competition, and environmental conditions. One unexplored factor is the interaction of rhizobacteria-inoculated plants exposed to ozone. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seeds were inoculated with either Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn or Paenibacillus macerans (Schardinger) Ash. In field trials, 4-week-old seedlings were exposed for 12 weeks to carbon-filtered (CF ≈ 12 ppb), 1× (≈46 ppb), or 2× (≈97 ppb) ozone for 12 h·d –1 in open-top chambers (OTC) in 1998 and 1999. In three greenhouse trials, 5-week-old seedlings were exposed to ozone at 0× (≈8 ppb), 1× (≈105 ppb), 2× (≈199 ppb), and 3× (≈298 ppb) for 4 h·d –1 , 5 d·week –1 for 8 weeks in continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTR). In both the CSTRs and the OTCs, ozone-exposed seedlings exhibited 20%–50% less biomass and more foliar injury as compared with nonexposed seedlings. In CSTRs, at the 3× exposure, B. subtilis-inoculated seedlings had 12% less foliar injury than noninoculated seedlings. Foliar injury was 65% less for B. subtilis-treated seedlings in 1998, and root surface area, total root length, and root diameter was 25%–35% greater when seedlings were exposed to 2× ozone in the OTCs. This is the first report of rhizobacteria protecting seedlings against the negative effects of ozone exposure.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207