Salt Tolerance in Herbage and its Application to Greening the Desert
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian peat moss was used as water holding material and the efficacy of mixing the peat with the sand on water holding capacity of the sand, and the adaptability of alfalfa (AL), burmudagrass (BG), bahiagrass(BH), weeping lovegrass (WL) and Japanese lawngrass(JL) to dry and saline conditions were investigated. Without mixing peat, pF value of the sand did not change for 6 days after watering, but rose markedly up to 2.9 after 18 days. With mixing peat at the rate of 2% by the sand weight, the value did not change for 20 days, and rose gradually up to 2.5 on 30th. The yield of the herbages was the highest in the sand with peat at 2%, and WL showed the highest value followed by BG. Salt tolerance at germination and seedling tests was the strongest in BG and WL. Under the 100mM NaCl condition, the pattern of cation uptake in BG and WL showed lower Na uptake and K decline than in AL, BH and JL. Oxygen production in thylakoid membrane was the highest in BG and WL.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".