MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of storage conditions and duration on seed viability and biochemical quality of pulses

2024· article· W7133332514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Malcolm Ashworth

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research in Agronomy · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationSeedlingStorage effectCold storageStorage proteinDuration (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seed stored poorly is seed wasted. Pulses represent one of the most protein-dense plant food groups, yet post-harvest losses from inadequate storage remain alarmingly high in many supply chains. This research examined the effects of three storage temperature regimes (4°C, 25°C, and 35°C) and storage duration (0-12 months) on germination percentage, seedling vigour, protein content, total phenolic compounds, and trypsin inhibitor activity in four pulse crops: chickpea, lentil, mung bean, and field pea. Seed lots were stored at the University of Guelph post-harvest research facility from September 2021 to September 2022. Cold storage at 4°C preserved germination above 89% for all species after 12 months. Ambient storage (25°C) reduced germination to 61.3% in the most sensitive species, while warm storage (35°C) caused declines below 40%. Protein content remained relatively stable across conditions, but phenolic compounds decreased by 18.4-27.6% under warm storage. These results confirm that temperature is the single most important controllable factor for maintaining both viability and biochemical quality of stored pulses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research in AgronomySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207