MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123138330 · doi:10.4141/p04-113

Prohexadione-calcium modifies growth and increases photosynthesis in strawberry nursery plants

2005· article· en· W2123138330 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
J. Y. C. Reekie, Peter R. Hicklenton, P.C. Struik

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaBASF CorporationNorth American Strawberry Grower's AssociationDepartment of Agriculture, Nova Scotia
KeywordsPhotosynthesisFragariaDry weightShootBiologySpecific leaf areaHorticultureVegetative reproductionAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prohexadione-calcium (ProCa) at an active ingredient concentration of 62.5 mg L -1 was applied as a foliar spray to Camarosa and Sweet Charlie strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duchesne) plants in growth chambers to assess its effects on dry weight allocation and growth over 42 d. The height, leaf number, leaf area, and specific leaf area (SLA) of daughter plants and the total dry weights of their leaves, stems and roots were all affected by ProCa treatments. Treated plants weighed less than untreated plants for the first 28 d after treatment, but by 42 d, all plants were similar in total weight regardless of treatment. ProCa-treated plants consistently allocated more dry weight to roots, and proportionally less to shoots, and were reduced in height, leaf area and SLA. ProCa increased net photosynthesis in plants grown in growth chambers and in the field. Plants grown in the field responded to ProCa earlier, and their photosynthetic rates were higher (i.e., 23–34% higher in daught ers and 34–41% higher in mothers) than those grown in growth chambers. Key words: Fragaria × ananassa, gibberellin biosynthesis inhibitor, growth analysis, net photosynthesis

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207