Physiological and biochemical characterization of <i>Acacia stenophylla</i> and <i>Acacia albida</i> exposed to salinity under hydroponic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil salinity is considered a serious environmental issue in many countries of the world, including Pakistan. A hydroponic experiment was carried out to study different mechanisms of salinity tolerance in two Acacia species, namely Acacia stenophylla A. Cunn. ex Benth. and Acacia albida Delile. Uniform seedlings of both species were grown for 28 days in half-strength Hoagland’s nutrient solution with 0, 100, or 200 mmol·L−1 NaCl concentrations. The results revealed that shoot biomass decreased by 21% and 29% at the lower salinity level (100 mmol·L−1 NaCl) and by 44% and 55% at the higher salinity level (200 mmol·L−1 NaCl) in A. stenophylla and A. albida, respectively. The respective reductions in root biomass of both species were 20% and 29% at the lower salinity level and 36% and 54% at the higher salinity level. The physiological attributes such as chlorophyll and relative water contents decreased to a greater extent in A. albida than in A. stenophylla. As a result of oxidative stress, membrane stability index (MSI) decreased in both species, with a greater reduction in A. albida. Among different antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT), the highest increase (sixfold) was observed in SOD activity in A. stenophylla. This study concludes that A. stenophylla is more salinity tolerant than A. albida as it maintained better ionic balance and higher activities of antioxidant enzymes and, as a result, higher biomass production.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".