Factors affecting regeneration from root fragments in two Physalis species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smooth ground-cherry ( Physalis virginiana var. subglabrata ) and clammy ground-cherry ( P. heterophylla ) are native weeds that are becoming more common in arable land in southern Ontario. Much of their success stems from vegetative propagation, especially after dispersal of root fragments during cultivation. Root fragments of different lengths, collected at different life cycle stages, from different parts of the root System and replanted at different depths and orientations in the soil, were tested for regeneration in the field and the greenhouse. No fragments left on the soil surface regenerated. Shallow (5 cm) burial led to the fastest regeneration. Fragments as short as 2.5 cm regenerated but the highest percentage regeneration was from fragments 10- cm long. Orientation had no effect on the capacity of root fragments to regenerate nor on the time taken to regenerate in either species. In both species, fewer root fragments sampled from plants at the fruit dispersal stage regenerated in the same season than fragments obtained at the early vegetative stage. Root fragments obtained from parts of the root System closest to the crown had the least regeneration. Root fragments with preformed visible buds at planting time regenerated faster than those with no preformed buds. In both the greenhouse and the field, smooth ground-cherry shoots emerged faster than those of clammy ground-cherry. These results suggest that reduction in ground-cherry infestations could be achieved by cultivating and dragging fragments to the surface.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".