MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stimulatory effect of peat on spore germination and hyphal growth of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus <i>Gigaspora margarita</i>

2006· article· en· W2160194080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nan Ma, Kazuhira Yokoyama, Takuya Marumoto

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science & Plant Nutrition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatSporeGerminationSpore germinationHyphaFungusBotanyBiologyMycorrhizaMossHorticultureBacteriaSymbiosisEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effects of peat extract solutions on spore germination and hyphal growth of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Gigaspora margarita Becker & Hall were investigated. Spores were incubated in extract solutions of peat from China and peat moss from Canada, which were prepared at a weight ratio of 1:10, 1:20, 1:30, 1:50 and 1:100 for each substrate according to the weight ratio of water. Compared with peat and peat moss solutions, solutions of KH2PO4 and (NH4)2SO4 at various concentrations were used as media to investigate the effect of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N). Spores in the peat solutions showed the highest values for germination percentage, hyphal length and number of auxiliary cells, and these values were significantly higher than the values recorded for the other treatments. In contrast, in the peat moss extract solutions, which had a lower content of N and higher content of P than the peat solutions, the germination and hyphal growth of spores decreased. Spore growth was promoted with increased concentrations of the N solutions. However, P solutions exerted an inhibitory effect on spore germination and hyphal growth. Peat solutions showed a high N content and low P content, which might be related to the promotion of spore growth.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science & Plant NutritionSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207