MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2386419061

Effects of Pb(II) on Seed Germination and Seeding Growth of Radish

2009· article· en· W2386419061 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kun Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationSeedlingSeedingChlorophyllHorticulturePoint of deliveryCotyledonChlorophyll aAgronomyBiologyChemistryBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of Pb(Ⅱ)on seed germination and seeding growth of radish were studied,in order to provide theoretical basis for non polluted agriculture product.The experiments researched the effects on seed germination and seedling growth of radish with Pb(Ⅱ)treatments(0,50,150,300,600,800,1000mg/L).The results indicated that:(1)The effects of Pb(Ⅱ)on the germination percentage,germination energy,germination index and vigor index of radish seeds were not significant(p0.05)when Pb(Ⅱ)concentration was 50mg/L.The germination energy and vigor index were not significant(p0.05),but the germination percentage and germination index were significant(p0.05),when the concentration of Pb(Ⅱ)was 150mg/L.Once the Pb(Ⅱ)concentrations were higher than 300 mg/L,each index of germination were significantly different from control(p0.01).(2)The low concentrations Pb(Ⅱ)(50,150mg/L)had already inhibited root and bud growth of radish seedling.As the concentration increasing,the inhibition became more and more heavily,and the effect on root was stronger.(3)Under Pb(Ⅱ)treatments of different concentrations,the content of chlorophyll a and b of radish cotyledon decreased,but chlorophyll a was more sensitive than chlorophyll b.(4)The activity of SOD was up to the highest point at 50 mg/L of Pb(Ⅱ)concentration and decreased afterwards.With the concentration increasing,the activity of POD increased.The radish seedlings were more sensitive to Pb(Ⅱ)treatments.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207