MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005789260 · doi:10.1139/cjm-2019-0427

Preliminary screening of rhizobacteria for biocontrol of little seed canary grass (<i>Phalaris minor</i> Retz.) and wild oat (<i>Avena fatua</i> L.) in wheat

2020· article· en· W3005789260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abubakar Dar, Zahir Ahmad Zahir, Hafiz Naeem Asghar, Rashid Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvena fatuaBiologySeedlingPhalaris minorRhizobacteriaPseudomonasAgronomyHorticultureWeedShootSiderophoreRhizosphereBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional weed control methods often have environmental impact. The present study was conducted to screen selected accessions of Pseudomonas for both potential biocontrol of Phalaris minor and Avena fatua and potential concurrent growth promotion of wheat. The four Pseudomonas strains (B11, T19, T24, and T75) were found positive for cyanide production, siderophore production, phosphorus solubilization, oxidase activity, catalase activity, and ACC deaminase activity in vitro. These strains were phytotoxic, causing up to 73.3% mortality in the lettuce seedling bioassay. Consortia of compatible Pseudomonas strains increased A. fatua and P. minor seedling mortality up to 50.0% and 56.7%, respectively, and reduced root length up to 73.8% and 53.9%, respectively, as compared with the uninoculated control. Consortia of compatible Pseudomonas strains increased wheat shoot length, root length, fresh biomass, dry biomass, and leaf greenness up to 41.6%, 100%, 79.9%, 81.5%, and 21.1%, respectively, over the uninoculated control. Four of the 11 Pseudomonas consortia tested expressed good weed suppression and wheat growth promotion capacity and deserve further experimentation. The findings from this study may lead to the formulation of bioherbicides that will improve human and environmental health.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207