Preliminary survey of clonal variation in rooting of <i>Allanblackia floribunda</i> leafy stem cuttings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal and cutting stem morphology variations in rooting ability were simultaneously examined in Allanblackia floribunda Oliv. using leafy stem cuttings in two experiments. The hypothesis tested is that clonal variation in rooting percentage is due to variation in cutting morphology. Each of the four replicate blocks used per experiment consisted of 18 treatments from two crossed factors, diameter or length × clone, making a total of n = 216 cuttings (3 cutting lengths (3, 4, and 5 cm) or diameters (2, 3, and 4 mm) × 6 stumps (clones) × 12 cuttings, as each experimental unit consisted of 12 cuttings). The cuttings were used for rooting in nonmist propagators. No clone × cutting diameter and clone × cutting length interactions (P = 0.293 and 0.513, respectively) on rooting percentage were found at the end of the study. Highly significant and significant clonal variations in rooting percentage were noted throughout the experiments. Results from this study reject the hypothesis being tested. Finally, further work should be done on the effects of physiological status of the cuttings and clonal variation in this species.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".