Productivity, Oil Content, and Composition of Two Spearmint Species in Mississippi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Scotch’ (Mentha × gracilis Sole) and ‘Native’ (Mentha spicata L.) spearmints are grown in the northern United States, but have not been evaluated in the Southeast. Two‐year field studies were conducted in Mississippi at two locations (Verona and Stoneville) to evaluate the effects of N application rate and cut (harvest time) on yields, essential oil contents, compositions, and the yield of individual oil constituents [(–)‐carvone, (R)‐(+)‐limonene, and eucalyptol] in Scotch and Native spearmints. Application of N at 80 and 160 kg/ha increased herbage and oil yields in Scotch, suggesting that commercial Scotch plantations should be provided with 160 kg N/ha. Native spearmint provided similar herbage yields when fertilized with 80 or 160 kg N/ha, but the higher N rate increased oil yields. The essential oil yields in this study were higher than the average oil yields for spearmint grown in the United States during 2008. The essential oil composition of Scotch and Native spearmints grown in Mississippi were similar to the oil produced in other states and other regions in the world. At the Verona site, the average (–)‐carvone concentration in the essential oil of Scotch was 68 to 75%, whereas the concentration of (–)‐carvone in Native oil ranged from 59 to 62%. At Stoneville, the average (–)‐carvone concentration in Scotch oil was 74%, whereas (–)‐carvone in Native oil was 68 to 74%. Both Scotch and Native spearmints could be grown as essential oil crops in Mississippi and possibly in other areas of the southeastern United States.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".