Waterlogging Tolerance of 57 Plant Species Grown Hydroponically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plans for hydroponic experiments, as well as the flooding of watersheds for ecological restoration, require abundant evaluation information regarding plant species adapted to waterlogged environments. In this study, we observed the growth rate and phenotypes of 57 plant species, including nine provenances of four species grown hydroponically. The 57 species were from 22 families and 33 genera, and their waterlogging tolerance (WT) was classified into five categories according to the results of the evaluation: excellent, good, ordinary, poor, and very poor. We found that 60% of these plant species were able to survive in hydroculture for more than 10 weeks. They showed new shoot growth and had a survival rate of more than 60%. Species with excellent or good WT developed new leaves rapidly under waterlogging stress, whereas species with ordinary or poor WT exhibited old leaves dropping from the stem soon after waterlogging stress. In addition, phenotypic divergence occurred among provenances of the same species under waterlogging stress.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".