Response of <i>Lantana camara</i> L. subsp. <i>camarato</i> paclobutrazol and shading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of several shading materials on the response of Lantana camara L. subsp. camara to paclobutrazol were investigated in 1997 and 1998 under greenhouse conditions inAttica (37°48’20”N, 23°57’48”E), Greece. Treatments were shading (0%, 28% and 65%) and paclobutrazol (0, 20, 40, 80 and 160 mg L–1) drenches after pinching of the plants. As paclobutrazol concentration increased, plant growth, expressed by the growth index (GI), decreased, at all shading levels. At the same time, the number of flowers per plant increased to a maximum as paclobutrazol concentration increased to 80 mg L–1. Concentrations above this resulted in a decrease in the number of flowers per plant, at all shading levels. The interaction between shading level and paclobutrazol concentration significantly affected the studied parameters. The growth index increased while the number of flowers per plant decreased as shading increased from 0% to 65%, at all concentration levels examined. Plants treated with paclobutrazol had greener leaves. At higher concentrations, some leaf distortion was noted. The most attractive plants (small with maximum flowering) were obtained with 80 mg L–1 paclobutrazol at 0% shading. Key words: Lantana camara, paclobutrazol, light intensity
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".