Germination temperature response of two ecotypes of winterfat [<i>Kraschenninikovia lanata</i> (Pursh) Guldenstaedt]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winterfat [Kraschenninikovia lanata (Pursh) Guldenstaedt], a drought-resistant native shrub that retains high nutritional value into the fall, has been documented to have a high degree of ecotypic variation. The objective of this study was to determine if ecotypic germination temperature differences occurred between readily available seed lots from New Mexico and the newly developed Saskatchewan Ducks Unlimited winterfat ecovar™. A two-factor factorial experiment was conducted with the two seed sources as one factor and eight germination temperatures ranging from 0 to 35°C as the second. Observations made were time to reach maximum number of germinants (D), and total number of germinants (G). The germination index (GI) and coefficient of velocity (CV) were developed using the data generated. Both seed sources had the greatest number of germinants between 10 to 20°C. The germination and germination indices profiles are distinct for each ecotype. The Saskatchewan ecotype germinated at higher levels below and above 10 to 20°C, a characteristic that should be of use for establishing winterfat in the highly variable environments of the Northern Great Plains. Key words: Kraschenninikovia lanata, winterfat, germination, germination index, coefficient of velocity, ecotype
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".