Yield and Composition of Oil from Japanese Cornmint Fresh and Dry Material Harvested Successively
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of harvest time and drying on Japanese cornmint (Mentha canadensis L.) cultivars Arvensis 2 and Arvensis 3 to optimize technology. Biomass yields were comparable to those reported in the literature. Arvensis 2 had greater oil content (0.78%) than Arvensis 3 (0.59%), while Arvensis 3 had higher concentrations of (‐)‐menthol (71.9%) and (‐)‐menthone (13.5%) than Arvensis 2 (61.7 and 9.4%, respectively). Arvensis 3 had higher fresh biomass (34,289 kg ha−1) than that of Arvensis 2 (23,929 kg ha−1). Dried biomass of the two cultivars was not significantly different. Higher oil yields were achieved from the fresh biomass of Arvensis 2 (108.7 kg ha−1), and lower from the dried biomass of Arvensis 2 (78.2 kg ha−1) and the fresh biomass of Arvensis 3 (84.3 kg ha−1). The concentration of (‐)‐menthol in the cultivars was higher at harvests 4 (69.3%) and 5 (67.7%), and lower at harvests 2 (63.6%) and 3 (64.7%). The yield of (‐)‐menthol was highest in harvest 4 (116.2 kg ha−1), lower in harvest 3 (78.4 kg ha−1) and lowest in the first harvest (19.1 kg ha−1). In northern Mississippi (or in other areas with similar latitude and environment), cornmint for production of (‐)‐menthol should be harvested in late July. For highest biomass yields, Arvensis 3 should be harvested in mid‐July, whereas Arvensis 2 should be harvested in late July. The essential oil profile of M. canadensis in this experiment was more desirable (with respect to (‐)‐menthol concentration) than the profile of two commercially available M. canadensis oil samples from other countries, which should make the oil produced in southeastern United States easily marketable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".