MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161259355 · doi:10.1139/w08-144

The effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on asparagus seedlings and germinating seeds subjected to water stress under greenhouse conditions

2009· article· en· W2161259355 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Scott M. Liddycoat, Bruce M. Greenberg, David J. Wolyn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAsparagusRhizobacteriaGerminationBiologyInoculationHorticultureCultivarGreenhouseSeedlingAgronomyOfficinalisBotanyRhizosphereBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can have positive effects on vigour and productivity, especially under stress conditions. In asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) field culture, seeds are planted in high-density nurseries, and 1-year-old crowns are transplanted to production fields. Performance can be negatively affected by water stress, transplant shock, and disease pressure on wounded roots. PGPR inoculation has the potential to alleviate some of the stresses incurred in the production system. In this study, the effects of PGPR (Pseudomonas spp.) treatment were determined on 3-week-old greenhouse-grown seedlings and germinating seeds of 2 asparagus cultivars. The pots were irrigated to a predetermined level that resulted in optimum growth or the plants were subjected to drought or flooding stress for 8 weeks. The cultivars responded differently to PGPR: single inoculations of seedlings enhanced growth of 'Guelph Millennium' under optimum conditions and 'Jersey Giant' seedlings under drought stress. Seed inoculations with PGPR resulted in a positive response only for 'Guelph Millennium', for which both single or multiple inoculations enhanced plant growth under drought stress.

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)0.000
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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations64
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207