Bibliographic record
Abstract
Response of Kyllinga peruviana Lam. to salt spray was studied to have an insight into the ecophysiological adaptations underlying the responses. Plants were exposed to foliar salt spray at: two sprays per week (2SS), four sprays per week (4SS) or six sprays per week (6SS), while those sprayed with de-ionized water served as control (CSS). Salt spray did not affect plant survival but had negative effect on growth. The growth parameters decreased except stem girth, which increased significantly in plants sprayed with seawater. Fresh and dry mass of plant parts were significantly lower under seawater treatment than in control. Total biomass, the relative growth rate and leaf total chlorophyll decreased while the root: shoot ratio increased under seawater application. Air-borne salt reduced plant xylem water potential but increased stem succulence for ion dilution. Salt spray accumulated Na+ and Cl- in the aerial parts, resulting in an increased total nutrient and percentage ash content, which culminated in ion toxicity. Salt spray reduced uptake of some essential nutrients but increased N in the aerial parts of seawater-treated plants showing the presence of salt-related nitrogen compounds for osmotic adjustment. Significantly higher values were obtained for Na: K in plants exposed to salt spray than in the control. It led to reduction in stomata density and number of stomata per leaf by as much as 42.86% and 80.42% respectively at 6SS. Air-borne salt caused necrotic damage on the leaf with increasing application level. Generally, salt spray had no effect on the root growth. Kyllinga peruviana tolerates sea water spray by the development of some adaptations to withstand salt-related stress associated with the strandline environment.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".