MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008300229 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2019-0108

Inhibitory effect of aqueous extracts of <i>Centaurea solstitialis</i> subsp. <i>schouwii</i> on seed germination and growth of <i>Sulla coronaria</i>

2020· article· en· W3008300229 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chadlia Hachani, Mohammed S. Lamhamedi, Mejda Abassi, Zoubeïr Béjaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllelopathyGerminationBiologyCentaureaSeedlingBotanyShootBioassayAsteraceaeEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiversity has been confronted with anthropogenic threats and several natural threats such as biological invasions. The success of these invasions involves phytotoxic products released by invasive plants that can exhibit allelopathic effects on target species. Thus, aqueous extracts from different parts of the Mediterranean yellow star-thistle [Centaurea solstitialis subsp. schouwii (DC.) Gugler], were tested for their allelopathic effects on seed germination and seedling growth of Sulla coronaria (L.). Bioassays were conducted in vitro to test the effects of the aqueous extracts of shoot, basal and root parts of C. solstitialis subsp. schouwii at two different concentrations (50 g·L −1 and 10 g·L −1 ). The concentrations of total polyphenols, flavonoids, and tannins of the extracts were also evaluated. Our results showed inhibitory effects on the germination and seedling growth of S. coronaria seedlings, particularly with the extract form the basal part, reaching 84%. This study confirms the linear relationships between the allelopathic effects of C. solstitialis subsp. schouwii and the polyphenol and flavonoid contents. However, further experiments are needed under field conditions to confirm the results obtained under laboratory conditions.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactionsFrench-language works237,207