MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406253755 · doi:10.5376/msb.2024.15.0023

Quality and Yield Responses of Bayberry to Soil pH Regulation

2025· article· en· W4406253755 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Soil Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGarlic and Onion Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBulbYield (engineering)Composition (language)ChemistryFood scienceHorticultureAnimal scienceBiologyMaterials scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acidity or alkalinity (pH) of the soil has a significant impact on the growth, fruit quality and yield of Morella rubra . Many studies have shown that the appropriate pH range is generally between 5.0 and 6.5. Within this range, the root system of the bayberry is more vigorous, capable of better absorbing nutrients, and the fruit development is also more normal. This not only increases the sugar-acid ratio in the fruit, but also boosts the content of anthocyanins and vitamin C, making the taste better and enhancing the antioxidant capacity. If the soil is too acidic or too alkaline, it will affect flower bud differentiation, reduce fruit setting rate, cause poor fruit enlargement, and ultimately lead to unstable yield and poor quality. Methods such as applying lime, increasing organic matter or adding biochar can alleviate soil acidification to a certain extent, improve the rhizosphere environment, and thereby increase the yield and fruit quality of bayberries. Future research still needs to explore the pH critical points at different growth stages of bayberries in greater detail, clarify the molecular mechanisms involved, and examine whether long-term regulatory measures have any impact on the ecological environment. Overall, scientifically adjusting soil pH is an important method to ensure high yield and quality of bayberries while maintaining sustainable development.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Soil BiologySame topicGarlic and Onion StudiesFrench-language works237,207