Vegetative propagation of sugar maple: Relating stem water content and terminal bud developmental stage to adventitious rooting of stem cuttings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to define the optimum period for collecting sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) stem cuttings. In 1999 and 2000, shoot development was monitored on young trees from a plantation established in 1993. Stem base water content and the number of pairs of terminal bud scales changed over time, reflecting meteorological characteristics of both years. In 1999, rooting percentage was high regardless of collection date, within a 7-wk period. The 2000 rooting trial covered a longer time frame and identified an optimal window during which rooting percentages reached 60 to 83%. Rooting success dropped below 30% for cuttings har vested too early or too late. Thus the optimal time for collecting sugar maple cuttings spans several weeks, but with significant year-to-year variations. For both years, optimal rooting was associated with a stem base water content lower than 75% but higher than 55%, and with the presence of one to three pairs of apical bud scales. This stage is reached when at least 270 degree-days above 5°C are accumulated. Using these indicators, practitioners can consider local conditions and year-to-year climatic variations to harvest sugar maple cuttings at an optimum stage of development. Key words: Acer saccharum, bud scales, collection date, cutting propagation, stem water content, vegetative propagation
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) | 0.000 | 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".