Split-root assays for studying legume–rhizobia symbioses, rhizodeposition, and belowground nitrogen transfer in legumes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Split-root assays have been used widely in studies focused on understanding the complex regulatory mechanisms in legume-rhizobia symbioses, root nitrogen rhizodeposition, and belowground nitrogen transfer, and the effects of different biotic/abiotic factors on this symbiotic interaction. This assay allows a plant to have a root system that is physically divided into two distinct sections that are both still attached to a common shoot. Thus, each root section can be treated separately to monitor local and systemic plant responses. Different techniques are used to establish split-root assemblies, including double-pot systems, divided growth pouches, elbow root assembly, twin-tube systems, a single pot or chamber with a partition in the center, and divided agar plates. This review is focused on discussing the various types of split-root assays currently used in legume-based studies, and their associated advantages and limitations. Furthermore, this review also focuses on how split-root assays have been used for studies on nitrogen rhizodeposition, belowground nitrogen transfer, systemic regulation of nodulation, and biotic and abiotic factors affecting legume-rhizobia symbioses.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".