Freeze Tolerance of bermudagrasses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bermudagrasses, Cynodon spp., periodically sustain winter injury in the transition zone between warm‐ and cool‐season turfgrasses. Our objective was to determine relative freeze tolerance levels of advanced lines, recently released cultivars, and standard varieties by means of laboratory‐based methodology. Freeze tolerance evaluations were divided into three groups on the basis of intended use. The vegetatively propagated fairway types (and their freeze tolerance values) included ‘GN‐1’ (−5.9°C), ‘Baby’ (−6.7°C), ‘Tifway’ (−6.7°C), ‘TifSport’ (−7.2°C), ‘Quickstand’ (−8.0°C), and ‘Midlawn’(−8.4°C). GN‐1 was significantly less hardy than TifSport, Quickstand and Midlawn. The second set of bermudagrasses comprised the seed‐propagated varieties: ‘Arizona Common’ (−5.6°C), ‘Mirage’ (−6.1°C), ‘Jackpot’ (−6.3°C), ‘Guymon’ (−7.4°C), and ‘Yukon’ (−7.6°C). Arizona Common was significantly less freeze tolerant than Guymon and Yukon. Mirage and Jackpot were not significantly hardier than Arizona Common. The third series of plants included vegetatively propagated bermudagrasses used for putting greens: ‘Champion’ (−4.8°C), ‘Floradwarf’ (−4.9°C), ‘MS‐Supreme’ (−5.2°C), ‘MiniVerde’(−5.8°C), ‘Tifeagle’ (−6.0°C), ‘Tifdwarf’ (−6.5°C), and ‘Tifgreen’ (−6.5°C). Tifdwarf and Tifgreen were significantly hardier than all of the other putting green bermudagrasses tested except for Tifeagle. Results should be useful in selecting appropriate genotypes for the transition zone of turfgrass adaptation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".