Isolation and Testing of Endophytes from Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) for Plant Growth Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rising global populations are causing persistent strain on agricultural systems. One sustainable alternative involves using plant species containing endophytes that can improve plant performance. Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) is a perennial grass known to host endophytes, but the functions of its endophytes are ambiguous. I hypothesized that endophytes present within a plant influences plant growth, therefore I investigated plant growth-promoting endophytes isolated from big bluestem. I isolated 68 bacterial and 17 yeast strains from seeds of 24 big bluestem plants grown in a low-input system. I performed DNA-based taxonomic identification, screened the strains for beneficial properties, selected the best-performing endophytes, and experimentally inoculated them into big bluestem and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Bacterial endophyte inoculation slightly increased big bluestem plant height, but no other benefits were observed. Future studies can explore if endophyte benefits to the plant host may be more likely if the plant is experiencing abiotic or biotic stressors.
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".