Alterations in plant growth and in root hormone levels of lodgepole pines inoculated with rhizobacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of other soil microorganisms might influence the ability of rhizobacterial inoculants to promote plant growth either by reducing contact between the inoculant and the plant root or by interfering with the mechanism(s) involved in rhizobacterially mediated growth promotion. We conducted the following experiments to determine whether reductions in the extent of growth promotion of lodgepole pine mediated by Paenibacillus polymyxa occur in the presence of a forest soil isolate (Pseudomonas fluorescens M20) and whether changes in plant growth promotion mediated by P. polymyxa (i) are related to changes in P. polymyxa density in the rhizosphere or (ii) result from alterations in root hormone levels. The extent of plant growth, P. polymyxa rhizosphere density, and root hormone concentrations were determined for lodgepole pine treated with (i) a single growth-promoting rhizobacterial strain (P. polymyxa L6 or Pw-2) or (ii) a combination of bacteria: strain L6 + strain M20 or strain Pw-2 + strain M20. There was no difference in the growth of pines inoculated with strain L6 and those inoculated with strain L6 + strain M20. However, seedlings inoculated with strain Pw-2 had more lateral roots and greater root mass at 12 weeks after inoculation than plants inoculated with strain Pw-2 + strain M20. The extent of growth promotion mediated by P. polymyxa L6 and Pw-2 in each treatment was not correlated to the average population density of each strain in the rhizosphere. Bacterial species-specific effects were observed in root hormone levels: indole-3-acetic acid concentration was elevated in roots inoculated with P. polymyxa L6 or Pw-2, while dihydrozeatin riboside concentration was elevated in roots inoculated with P. fluorescens M20.
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".