MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970320964 · doi:10.1080/15538360903378575

Influence of Mycorrhizal Fungi on the Rooting of Stem and Stolon Cuttings of the Colombian Blueberry (<i>Vaccinium meridionale</i>Swartz)

2009· article· en· W1970320964 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rodrigo Andrés Ávila Diazgranados, Oscar J. Orozco Silva, Gustavo Ligarreto Moreno, Stanislav Magnitskiy, Alia Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fruit Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsCuttingStolonBiologyVacciniumHorticultureVegetative reproductionBotanySubstrate (aquarium)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Colombian blueberry (Vaccinium meridionale Swartz) is a promissory crop for the Andean Region of South America, and the absence of a suitable propagation protocol presents a difficulty introducing it into commercial production. This research was undertaken in order to evaluate the effect of mycorrhizal fungi on rhizogenesis of stem and stolon cuttings of the Colombian blueberry. The highest rooting percentages (up to 73.3%) were observed at day 60 on stem cuttings treated with 200 mg −1 4-indole-3yl-butyric acid or napthtalene-acetic acid in mycorrhiza-free substrate. The presence of mycorrhizas in substrate increased cutting viability up to 95%, but reduced percentage rooting, root number, and root length on stem cuttings of the Colombian blueberry. Treating stem cuttings with 200–400 mg −1 4-indole-3yl-butyric acid or napthtalene-acetic acid diminished the effects of fungi on root formation. The use of stolon cuttings for vegetative propagation of the Colombian blueberry had low practical applicability. The results of the study might further serve to establish the optimal substrate conditions and cutting source for vegetative propagation of the Colombian blueberry in commercial culture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Fruit ScienceSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207