Morphological root responses of soybean to rhizosphere hypoxia reflect waterlogging tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jitsuyama, Y. 2015. Morphological root responses of soybean to rhizosphere hypoxia reflect waterlogging tolerance. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 999–1005. Excess soil moisture induces hypoxia, causing waterlogging injury in soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Twelve Japanese soybean cultivars with varying hypoxia tolerance were used. Of these, 11 (all but Hayahikari) were evaluated for waterlogging tolerance using a scaled index with data from previous studies. To investigate hypoxic responses, cultivars were grown under hydroponic conditions for 2 wk a year for 2 yr, with aerobic or hypoxic oxygen concentrations artificially maintained in the rhizosphere. Hypoxic responses (measured as plant dry weight and root morphology) were assessed at the early vegetative stage. The effects of hypoxic treatment on root dry weight were significant, and the effect of year on soybean dry weight was not significant. The change in root dry weight, and particularly, in coarse root length, was significantly correlated with waterlogging tolerance index at the 0.001 probability level. This study showed that root responses to rhizosphere hypoxia might reflect waterlogging tolerance in soybeans.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".