The Effect of Natural Mulches on Crop Performance, Weed Suppression and Biochemical Constituents of Catnip and St. John's Wort
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of expanding markets for high-value niche crops, opportunities have increased for the production of medicinal herbs in the USA. An experiment was conducted in 2001 and 2002 near Gilbert, IA, to study crop performance, weed suppression, and environmental conditions associated with the use of several organic mulches in the production of two herbs, catnip (Nepeta cataria L.) and St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L. 'Helos'). Treatments were arranged in a completely randomized design and included a positive (hand-weeded) control, a negative (nonweeded) control, oat straw, a flax straw mat, and a nonwoven wool mat. Catnip plant height was significantly greater in the oat straw than the other treatments at 4 wk through 6 wk in 2001; at 4 to 8 wk in 2002, catnip plant height and width was significantly lower in the negative control compared with the other treatments. Catnip yield was significantly higher in the flax straw mat than all other treatments in 2001. In 2002, St. John's wort yields were not statistically different in any treatments. All weed management treatments had significantly fewer weeds than the non-weeded rows in 2002. Total weed density comparisons in each crop from 2 yr showed fewer weeds present in the flax straw and wool mat treatments compared with positive control plots. There was no significant weed management treatment effect on the concentration of the target compounds, nepetalactone in catnip and pseudohypericin-hypericin in St. John's wort, although there was a trend toward higher concentrations in the flax straw treatment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it