Allelopathic Activity of Cactus Used in the Foraging in the Brazilian Semi-arid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of cactus for forage may cause soil contamination by allelochemicals in order to compromise the future planting or even reforestation of that site. The objective of this work was to evaluate the allelopathic action of cladodes and roots of Cereus jamacaru, Pilosocereus gounellei and Tacinga inamoena on the germination and development of Cenchrus echinatus and Calotropis procera in order to suggest actions that increase efficiency in restoration strategies. Of the species of Cactaceae mentioned above, cladodes and roots were collected for the preparation of the extracts in which two types of extracts were prepared for each organ, one treatment by hot infusion and one cold treatment. Germination Percentages (GP) and Germination Speed Index (GSI) were analyzed. In order to analyze if the extracts presented some allelopathic activity regarding the development of the seedlings, the lengths of the stem and the radicle of the recipient species were measured. The results of this research show that cacti don’t significantly affect GP from seeds of other plants. However, for GSI, roots and cladodes of T. inamoena presented negative allelopathic activity for C. echinatus and C. procera, respectively. In addition to GSI, T. inamoena negatively affected the development of C. echinatus rootlets. In this way T. inamoena is a forage cactus that affects the development of the initial structures of surrounding plants. Thus, the exacerbation of this forage species in natural areas should be avoided, since the released allelochemicals can interfere with the ecological succession of the plant species of that environment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".