Effects of seed tape on eelgrass ( <i>Zostera marina</i> L.) seed germination and seedling development: a study into seed tape sowing technique for seagrass restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Seagrass meadows conservation and restoration are recognized as nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation. Seed-based restoration strategies have gained popularity owing to their potential for large-scale application. Despite an increasing number of successful seagrass restoration efforts, large-scale seeding restoration practices still face challenges, including low sowing efficiency and seedling emergence rates. To address these challenges, this laboratory study investigated the feasibility of adapting terrestrial seed tape sowing technology for seagrass restoration, specifically by examining the effects of seed tape sowing and various tape materials (polylactic acid, polypropylene, cotton, and paper) on Zostera marina L. seed germination and seedling establishment. The findings demonstrated successful eelgrass seed germination and seedling establishment using seed tape, achieving a maximum seedling establishment rate exceeding 80%. Seed tape materials were found to play a vital role in seed germination and seedling growth, primarily attributable to their structural properties rather than their degradation performance. Environmentally friendly cotton and paper tape materials were identified as more suitable for seagrass restoration compared to less readily degradable materials. These results indicate that seed tape sowing technology holds significant potential for large-scale seagrass restoration, offering benefits such as enhanced sowing efficiency through mechanized equipment and improved seed use efficiency. However, this technology requires further optimization and exploration in field settings. This research provides valuable theoretical insights and empirical data to support the application of seed tape sowing technology in seagrass restoration.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".