Examining the salt tolerance of willow (Salix spp.) bioenergy species for use on salt-affected agricultural lands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hangs, R. D., Schoenau, J. J., Van Rees, K. C. J. and Steppuhn, H. 2011. Examining the salt tolerance of willow (Salix spp.) bioenergy species for use on salt-affected agricultural lands. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 509-517. Dryland salinity is a significant limitation on crop production across the Canadian prairies, with an estimated 4 million ha of salt-affected land. The potential exists to make better use of saline marginal lands by developing them into willow (Salix spp.) plantations as a bioenergy feedstock; however, relatively little is known about the salt tolerance of willow. The objective of this study was to compare the relative salt tolerance of 37 different native and exotic willow varieties grown under controlled environment conditions on soils of varying salinity. The soils were collected from a farm field in south-central Saskatchewan along a hillslope catena influenced by saline seep salinity, containing high concentrations of sulfate salts, which commonly occurs within western Canada. Most willow varieties tested in this study were able to tolerate moderately saline conditions (ECe=5.0 dS m-1). In addition, several varieties (Alpha, India, Owasco, Tully Champion, and 01X-268-015) showed no reduction in growth with severe salinity (ECe=8.0 dS m-1). These results indicate that some willow varieties are quite salt-tolerant and suitable for establishment on salt-affected soils in Saskatchewan and abroad.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".