Physiological Quality of Common Bean Seeds Subjected to Different Concentrations of Salicylic Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Salicylic acid acts on several plant physiological processes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if salicylic acid interferes on the physiological quality of common bean seeds soaked with different concentrations by testing two seed imbibition methodologies. Common bean seeds of the cultivars Fepagro 26 and Predileto were utilized. The seeds were soaked in solutions of salicylic acid with concentrations of zero, 250, 500, 750, 1,000, 3,000 and 5,000 μM. Seed imbibition occurred in two ways: (1) germination paper moistened with salicylic acid solutions, and (2) seed imbibition in salicylic acid solutions in plastic boxes for 24 hours and subsequent sowing on germination paper moistened with distilled water. The experiment was maintained in a germination incubator under 25 °C temperature and with constant light. The number of normal seedlings (first count), length, fresh and dry matter of seedlings were determined on the fifth day after sowing. Germination percentage was assessed nine days after sowing. The study was performed in a completely randomized design with four replicates and 50 seeds were used for each treatment. Regression analysis was performed for salicylic acid concentrations, with no comparison of cultivars and seed imbibition methods. Salicylic acid in concentrations up to 1,000 μM does not negatively affect the common bean seed germination of the cultivars Fepagro 26 and Predileto, using seed soaking for 24 hours and imbibition in the germination paper. Concentrations of salicylic acid up to 1,000 μM and seed imbibition for 24 hours do not affect the vigor (first count) of the two common bean cultivars.
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) | 0.001 | 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".