MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973212738 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n16p46

Phytotoxic Effect of Brachiaria decumbens Extract on the Development of Eucalyptus urograndis Seedlings

2019· article· en· W2973212738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fernando Luiz da Cruz Balena, Reginaldo Ferreira Santos, Doglas Bassegio, Deonir Secco, Luciene Kazue Tokura, Leonardo da Silva Reis, Bruna de Villa, Chaiane Bassegio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsBrachiariaEucalyptusDry weightHorticultureDistilled waterBiologyBotanyAqueous extractAgronomyChemistryForageTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work was to evaluate the phytotoxic effect of Brachiaria decumbens Stapf. on the morphometry of Eucalyptus urograndis plants, genetically modified hybrid of Eucalyptus urophylla S. T. Blake × Eucalyptus grandis W. Hill ex Maiden. Pots containing the eucalyptus plants were conditioned in protected environments in a completely randomized experimental design. The treatments were composed of aqueous extract of Brachiaria decumbens grass at different concentrations: 0% (control, distilled water only), 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% (g/L). On day 30 of the experiment, the following morphological parameters of the plants were evaluated: aerial part height, diameter of stem, aerial dry mass, root dry mass, total dry mass, and robustness index. The data were submitted to analysis of variance at the 5% level of significance, and a regression equation was constructed for the quantitative treatments. The results indicated that the Brachiaria decumbens grass extract did not have an inhibitory effect on aerial part height and robustness index. However, the extract at concentrations higher than 20% had negative effects on root dry mass, aerial dry mass, and total dry mass. For the diameter of the stem, only concentrations above 60% had an inhibitory effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207