Physiological and Biochemical Responses to Salt Stress of Alfalfa Populations Selected for Salinity Tolerance and Grown in Symbiosis with Salt-Tolerant Rhizobium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alfalfa and its rhizobial symbiont are sensitive to salinity. We compared the physiological responses of alfalfa populations inoculated with a salt-tolerant rhizobium strain, exposed to five NaCl concentrations (0, 20, 40, 80, or 160 mM NaCl). Two initial cultivars, Halo (H-TS0) and Bridgeview (B-TS0), and two populations obtained after three cycles of recurrent selection for salt tolerance (H-TS3 and B-TS3) were compared. Biomass, relative water content, carbohydrates, and amino acids concentrations in leaves and nodules were measured. The higher yield of TS3-populations than initial cultivars under salt stress showed the effectiveness of our selection method to improve salinity tolerance. Higher relative root water content in TS3 populations suggests that root osmotic adjustment is one of the mechanisms of salt tolerance. Higher concentrations of sucrose, pinitol, and amino acid in leaves and nodules under salt stress contributed to the osmotic adjustment in alfalfa. Cultivars differed in their response to recurrent selection: under a 160 mM NaCl-stress, aromatic amino acids and branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) increased in nodules of B-ST3 as compared with B-TS0, while these accumulations were not observed in H-TS3. BCAAs are known to control bacteroid development and their accumulation under severe stress could have contributed to the high nodulation of B-TS3.
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) | 0.000 | 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".