MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417123989 · doi:10.3390/crops5060089

Effect of Cold Plasma Seed Treatment on Growth and Nitrogen Fixation Traits in Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) and Soybean (Glycine max L.) Under Cold Stress

2025· article· en· W4417123989 on OpenAlexafffund
Dhanuja N. Abeysingha, Surangi H. Thilakarathna, Shifa Dinesh, Roopesh M. Syamaladevi, Malinda S. Thilakarathna

Bibliographic record

VenueCrops · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlasma Applications and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsField peaSativumPisumNitrogen fixationLegumePoint of deliveryShootYield (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cold stress during early growth can severely impact nodulation, growth, and yield in legumes. This study evaluated cold plasma (CP) seed treatment as a strategy to enhance growth and symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF) in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and soybean (Glycine max L.) under cold stress during early growth. CP-treated and non-treated seeds were grown at 8 °C (cold) or 15 °C (control) for 5 weeks, after which half of the plants were harvested for nodulation and growth assessments. The remainder were transferred to greenhouse conditions until maturity. The cold stress suppressed nodulation and reduced biomass in both legumes. Soybean recovered under greenhouse conditions; however, pea yield remained suppressed. At maturity, SNF traits in both legumes were not significantly affected by early cold stress. CP seed treatment showed little effect under severe cold (8 °C) but at 15 °C, improved root growth in pea and enhanced root and shoot biomass and pod and seed yield in soybean. These findings suggest that CP seed treatment can improve legume performance under moderate cold. However, the current CP seed treatment conditions did not improve the stress resistance of both crops under severe cold stress.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCropsSame topicPlasma Applications and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207