MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118520300 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.47.10.1525

Cultivation and Irrigation of Fernleaf Biscuitroot (Lomatium dissectum) for Seed Production

2012· article· en· W2118520300 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Myrtle P. Shock, Clinton C. Shock, Erik B.G. Feibert, Nancy L. Shaw, Lamont D. Saunders, Ram K. Sampangi

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRangelandIrrigationAgronomySowingEnvironmental scienceRandomized block designShrubBiologyForbAgroforestryGrasslandBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Native grass, forb, and shrub seed is needed to restore rangelands of the U.S. Intermountain West. Fernleaf biscuitroot [ Lomatium dissectum (Nutt.) Mathias & Constance] is a desirable component of rangelands. Commercial seed production is necessary to provide the quantity and quality of seed needed for rangeland restoration and reclamation efforts. Fernleaf biscuitroot has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years in the western United States as a source of food and medicine. Knowledge about fernleaf biscuitroot is confined to ethnobotanical reports, evaluation of some of its chemical constituents, and its role in rangelands. Products derived from fernleaf biscuitroot are sourced from wild plant populations. Little is known about fernleaf biscuitroot cultivation or its seed production. Variations in spring rainfall and soil moisture result in highly unpredictable water stress at flowering, seed set, and seed development of fernleaf biscuitroot. Water stress is known to compromise seed yield and quality for other seed crops. Irrigation trials were conducted at the Oregon State University Malheur Experiment Station at Ontario, OR, a location within the natural environmental range of fernleaf biscuitroot. It was anticipated that supplemental irrigation would be required to produce a seed crop in all years. Fernleaf biscuitroot was established through mechanical planting and cultivation on 26 Oct. 2005 in a randomized complete block design with four replicates; plot size was 9.1 m × 3.04 m wide. Irrigation treatments were 0 mm, 100 mm, and 200 mm/year applied in four equal treatments 2 weeks apart, timed to begin with flowering and continue through seed formation. First flowering occurred in the third year after planting. Seed production increased from the fourth through the sixth year. Optimal irrigation for seed production was calculated as 140 mm/year.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207