Effect of Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Selected Spring Wheat Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="sar-body"><span lang="EN-US">An experiment was performed in a completely randomized split-plot design using five lines of spring wheat (<em>Triticum aestivum </em>L.) (AW-774, AC Carberry, HY-162, Major and AAC Scotia) and two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) strains (<em>Rhizoglomus irregulare </em>and <em>Glomus cubense</em>). Two different inoculant forms (solid and liquid) for the <em>G. cubense</em> strain were evaluated. The main plot was AMF, and the subplot was spring wheat lines. Data on heading date, plant height, fresh, and dry biomass, yield, grain quality (chemical composition of the seeds, gluten, and sugar), root structure, and colonization by AMF were collected. The results show a positive effect of inoculation in comparison with the control treatment. The liquid and solid <em>G. cubense</em> inoculants provided better results than inoculation with <em>R.</em> <em>irregulare</em>. Fungus indicators were in agreement with root morphological parameters because of the effect induced by AMF activity. Yield increased significantly in the mycorrhizal treatments.</span></p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".