Plant Growth Stimulation by Microbial Consortia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant-associated microorganisms play an important role in agricultural production. Although various studies have shown that single microorganisms can exert beneficial effects on plants, it is increasingly evident that when a microbial consortium—two or more interacting microorganisms—is involved, additive or synergistic results can be expected. This occurs, in part, due to the fact that multiple species can perform a variety of tasks in an ecosystem like the rhizosphere. Therefore, the beneficial mechanisms of plant growth stimulation (i.e., enhanced nutrient availability, phytohormone modulation, biocontrol, biotic and abiotic stress tolerance) exerted by different microbial players within the rhizosphere, such as plant-growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) and fungi (such as Trichoderma and Mycorrhizae), are reviewed. In addition, their interaction and beneficial activity are highlighted when they act as part of a consortium, mainly as mixtures of different species of PGPB, PGPB–Mycorrhizae, and PGPB–Trichoderma, under normal and diverse stress conditions. Finally, we propose the expansion of the use of different microbial consortia, as well as an increase in research on different mixtures of microorganisms that facilitate the best and most consistent results in the field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it