Initial Development of Safflower Submitted to Irrigation Water Salinity Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safflower cultivation is an alternative to tropical cropping systems, with a good rusticity and some tolerance to saline stress in some cultivars. With the increase of irrigated areas around the world, salinization of the soil is an inherent concern, being the management of irrigation and cultivated species fundamental. The objective of this study was to evaluate the growth and initial development of safflower culture submitted to irrigation water salinity levels. The experiment was carried out in a greenhouse in a completely randomized design consisting of five irrigation water salinity levels (0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 dS m-1) and six replications. The saline solution was prepared using NaCl and measured with a conductivity meter. Plant height, number of leaves and stem diameter at 26 and 41 days after emergence, and shoot dry weight were evaluated; root volume; root dry mass; total dry mass and dry root/shoot mass ratio at 41 days after plant emergence. There was no visual influence of salinity levels in the evaluations at 26 days after plant emergence. However, 41 days after plant emergence, the increase in salinity levels promoted a decrease in all analyzed variables, except for root volume. Safflower does not tolerate irrigation with saline water. The damages occur from 2 dS m-1, but the largest reductions in the initial development of safflower occur from 6 to 8 dS m-1.
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) | 0.001 | 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".