Greenhouse production of <i>Echinacea purpurea</i> (L.) and <i>E. angustifolia</i> using different growing media, NO<sub>3</sub><sup>−</sup>/NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> ratios and watering regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current field cultivation and wild-harvest methods for the medicinal plant Echinacea are struggling to meet the requirements for a high-quality, uniformly produced crop for human consumption. To help meet this challenge, the potential of using a greenhouse production system for Echinacea production was explored. Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench and angustifolia DC. var. angustifolia plants were grown in three types of greenhouse production systems: (1) deep flow solution culture (D), (2) pots with either Pro-Mix (P) or (3) sand (S). Plants were irrigated with one of three nutrient solutions containing NO 3 − /NH 4 + ratios of 7:1, 5:1 or 3:1, respectively. The plants grown in the Pro-Mix and the sand systems were either well-watered or subjected to periodical water stress. The results obtained after 12 wk of growth showed that Echinacea root production in the greenhouse systems was comparable with or better than that in the field. Based on root and total biomass production, the Pro-Mix system was the best production system for both E. angustifolia and E. purpurea. In most cases, the NO 3 − /NH 4 + ratio did not have significant effects on the growth of either species. When effects were seen, however, higher NO 3 − /NH 4 + levels generally resulted in greater leaf area, root and total biomass, and a higher root/shoot ratio. Mild periodic water stress did not affect the root/shoot ratio or the root biomass in either species. The application of a periodic water stress reduced leaf area of both species, but a reduction in total biomass was only observed in E. purpurea. Key words: Echinacea, greenhouse production, hydroponic production, medicinal plant, NO 3 − /NH 4 + ratio, water stress
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".