MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944538325 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2019-0038

Dormancy, germination, and sensitivity to salinity stress in five species of <i>Potentilla</i> (Rosaceae)

2019· article· en· W2944538325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeremi Kołodziejek, Jacek Patykowski, Mateusz Wala

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationBiologyStratification (seeds)DormancyPotentillaSeed dormancyBotanySalinityHorticultureRosaceaeEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laboratory and greenhouse experiments were conducted to determine the effect of environmental factors on the germination and emergence of five species of Potentilla L. All of the species we studied differed in their germination requirements, and these could be related to their habitat/ecology. For all species, completion of germination was the highest at 25/15 °C with a 14 h photoperiod. Seeds of Potentilla argentea L. and P. inclinata Vill. completed germination immediately after ripening while seeds of P. aurea Borkh., P. incana P.Gaertn., B.Mey. &amp; Scherb., and P. reptans L. needed a 16-week period of cold stratification to break dormancy. GA 3 treatment did not substitute for cold stratification. The seeds of all species did not complete germination in darkness and showed maximal emergence on the soil surface, which suggests the formation of a persistent seed bank. Completion of germination was inhibited by decreasing osmotic potential and increasing salt concentration. The seeds of all species we studied can complete germination in both acidic and alkaline soils. These results suggest that under field conditions, if moisture and (or) salinity are not limiting factors and a seed is located on the soil surface, completion of germination of nondormant species (P. argentea and P. inclinata) is possible any month of the growing season.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207