Propagation Potentials of Genotypes and Different Physiological Ages of Stem Cuttings in Jatropha curcas L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Propagation potentials of stem cuttings of different physiological ages and genotypes of Jatropha curcas were studied at UKM, Malaysia. Stem cuttings of the different physiological ages (hardwood, semi hardwood and soft wood) taken from five selected genotypes of Jatropha and were planted soil media (top soil). Data were collected on the attributes of the stem cuttings and were analyzed using computer based software, SAS version 9.01. The study showed significant variability in shoot and root development and growth of shoots of the three physiological ages of cuttings and five genotypes. Semi hardwood stem cuttings had lower days to opening of new bud and shooting (4.84 and 11.70, respectively) as well as higher percentage of sprouted and rooted cuttings of 100.00% and 98.47%, respectively. Soft wood cuttings took higher days to opening of new bud and shoot development in all the five genotypes. Soft wood cuttings also showed lower percentage of rooted cuttings. Semi hard wood cuttings were found more suitable for the vegetative propagation of Jatropha curcas through stem cutting which gave more than 98% success. Genotypic differences were observed in shooting and rooting of Jatropha. Genotype JC 14 performed better in all three types of cutting compared to other four genotypes.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".