Loblolly pine seedling growth after inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and ozone exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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·d1 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·d1, 5 d·week1 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".