MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480048245 · doi:10.4236/ajps.2016.79131

Effect of Chitosaccharides in Nodulation and Growth <i>in Vitro</i> of Inoculated Soybean

2016· article· en· W2480048245 on OpenAlexaff
Daimy Costales, A. B. Falcón, María C. Nápoles, Julien De Winter, Pascal Gerbaux, Robertus Cornelis Adrianus Onderwater, Ruddy Wattiez, Juan Carlos Cabrera

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Plant Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsIONICS Mass Spectrometry (Canada)
FundersOrganisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
KeywordsBradyrhizobiumChitosanInoculationBradyrhizobium japonicumSymbiosisIn vitroBiologyDry weightHorticulturePlant growthBacteriaChemistryRhizobiumRhizobiaceaeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of chitosaccharides on the symbiotic interaction between Bradyrhizobium and soybean was examined. The results show that chitosaccharides either positively or negatively affect soybean nodulation or plant growth depending on their molecular weight, concentration and the application methods. When directly added to the in vitro culture media, chitosan of high molecular weight inhibit Bradyrhizobium viability in a dose dependent manner while chitooligosaccharides reduce slightly the bacteria viability only at concentration equal or higher than 50 mg·L-1. Chitooligosaccharides significantly enhance nodule formation and dry mass in soybean roots at doses between 10 and 100 mg·L-1. Both types of chitosaccharides, at the highest doses (>500 mg·L-1), negatively affect plant height and root size, whereas medium doses (50 to 100 mg·L-1) increase slightly leave number. Under field conditions, foliar application of both chitosaccharides enhances growth and nodulation of soybean plants. Nevertheless, using this application method, chitosan remains more effective than chitooligosaccharides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207