Regional differences in hypericin and pseudohypericin concentrations and five morphological traits among <i>Hypericum perforatum</i> plants in the northwestern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geographic differences among Hypericum perforatum L. plants in concentration of two hypericins and five morphological characteristics were analyzed in plants collected from four sites each in northern California and western Montana and two sites in Oregon. Differences among regional collections of H. perforatum were assessed based on analysis of hypericin and pseudohypericin concentration in floral, leaf, and stem tissue; light and dark leaf gland density; leaf area; leaf length/width ratio; and stem height. Significant differences in morphological and biochemical traits were detected primarily between samples collected from California and Montana. California samples had higher concentrations of hypericins, greater leaf gland density, larger leaves, and taller stems than those from Montana. Overall, Oregon samples did not consistently differentiate from those of Montana and California. Seasonal differences in hypericins were analyzed in Oregon plants only. Mean floral concentration of pseudohypericin (0.29%) and hypericin (0.06%) were highest during anthesis coinciding with July and August sampling dates, whereas mean leaf concentrations (0.19 and 0.04%, respectively) were highest in August.Key words: Hypericum perforatum, hypericin, St. John's wort, leaf glands, noxious weed, medicinal plant.
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".