Tolerance to agricultural pesticides of strains belonging to four genera of<i>Rhizobiaceae</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it