Tolerance to agricultural pesticides of strains belonging to four genera of<i>Rhizobiaceae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to determine their tolerance to pesticides, 122 strains of rhizobia isolated from different geographical regions, and belonging to the genera Rhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Sinorhizobium and Bradyrhizobium were tested against eight herbicides, four fungicides and five insecticides. Sensitivity to the pesticides was measured by using the filter paper disk method at four concentrations, 0.45, 4.5, 45 and 450 μg per disk. When the pesticides were used at 0.45 μg per disk, a concentration similar to that found when pesticides are applied under field conditions, no inhibition was observed. Strains growth was affected at concentrations of 45 and 450 μg pesticide per disk. These higher concentrations can be encountered when seeds are treated with pesticides. Pesticides tolerance level was correlated to pesticide function, i.e rhizobial strains were more tolerant to insecticides, followed by herbicides and then fungicides. Two fungicides, captan and mancozeb, inhibited the highest number of strains. Only one insecticide, carbaryl, affected the growth of some rhizobial strains. Strains isolated from the arctic (Mesorhizobium spp. and R. leguminosarum bv. viciae), a putative pesticides-free environment, were either less or equally affected by pesticides compared to strains isolated from agricultural regions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".