Allelopathic Effect of Aqueous Extracts of Eupatorium adenophorum Spreng. by Different Treatment Methods on Seed Germination of Pinus Yunanensis Franch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pinus yunnanensis Seeds were treated by aqueous extracts of Eupatorium adenophorum above-ground of EEDS(the sample which eliminated enzyme and dried by heat) and CFS(the crumbled fresh sample) and IFS(the integrity fresh sample),observed the influence on seed germination.The result showed that the allelopathy effect of the extracts of E.adenophorum by different treatments on seed germination of Pinus yunnanensis was different,germination pinnacle after treated by aqueous extracts of IFS and EEDS at low concentration of 0.0025g/ml occurred in the sixth day,but the pinnacle after treated by aqueous extracts of other treatments and contrast occurred in the seventh day,as far as germination potential and germination speed be concerned,at high concentration of 0.04g/ml,the inhibitory effects of EEDS and CFS were stronger than IFS's,the stimulating effects of IFS were stronger than CFS's at the concentration of 0.04g/ml or 0.0025g/ml,most of the mean differences between IFS and CFS and EEDS were significant at the.01 level or.05 level,but the mean differences between CFS and EEDS were not significant.As far as germination rate be concerned,the mean differences between IFS and CFS and EEDS were not significant.The function form and degree of allelopathy were bound up with sample treatment means,so the author suggested to use integrity fresh sample to extract allelopathy chemicals by using aqueous extract.
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".