Combined Effects of Biological and Chemical Treatment on Rice Seed Physiological and Sanitary Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of integrated biological and chemical control of pathogens in rice seeds and their effects on seed quality. The experiment was conducted in a 2 × 5 factorial completely randomized design. Fungicide-treated (carboxin/thiram) and untreated rice seeds were inoculated with distilled water (control), Azospirillum brasilense, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas fluorescens, or Trichoderma harzianum. Seed vigor and viability, shoot and root length, and seedling dry weight were determined. The blotter test was carried out to assess seed health. Fungicide treatment improved seed vigor and viability and reduced the incidence of fungi. Biological treatment did not enhance the physiological quality of seeds but was able to control fungi. A. brasilense, B. subtilis, P. fluorescens, and T. harzianum controlled Phoma sorghina; B. subtilis, P. fluorescens, and T. harzianum were effective against Aspergillus flavus; P. fluorescens and T. harzianum controlled Pyricularia oryzae; and T. harzianum was effective against Gerlachia oryzae.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".