MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403635763 · doi:10.7202/1113873ar

Effect of biostimulants on mustard microgreens grown under different cultivation conditions

2024· article· en· W4403635763 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Justine Clément, Maxime Delisle‐Houde, Thi Thuy An Nguyen, Martine Dorais, Russell J. Tweddell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Growth Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAgronomyBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ten products, commercially available as biostimulants or reported for their biostimulating properties, were tested under conventional and organic growing systems for their effects on mustard microgreens ( Brassica juncea ) grown in presence of abiotic (salt) or biotic ( Pythium ultimum ) stress. Drench application of wollastonite (calcium silicate) significantly improved the germination rate of mustard seeds sown in a substrate inoculated with P. ultimum in conventional growing system exclusively. In both growing systems, no significant effect of biostimulants was observed on the dry biomass or the proportion of healthy microgreens grown in presence of P. ultimum . None of the biostimulants significantly increased the germination rate of seeds exposed to a salinity stress in both growing systems while humic acid, triacontanol, chitosan, and Bacillus subtilis PTB185 significantly decreased the germination rate of seeds exposed to 40, 80 or 120 mM NaCl L -1 under conventional or organic management. Seed treatment with Trichoderma harzianum T-22 and humic acid resulted in microgreens with a significantly higher dry biomass when subjected to 40 and 80 mM NaCl L -1 under conventional and organic management, respectively. The study showed that the effects of the biostimulants vary from beneficial to detrimental and that plant response to biostimulants is influenced by the cultivation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicPlant Growth Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207