Establishment of a plastochron index for growth assessment of <i>Phalaenopsis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A plastochron index was established for four commercial cultivars of Phalaenopsis: Phalaenopsis 'Taisuco Carol' × (Doritaenopsis 'New Cinderella' × P. 'Isaribi') (Taiwan Sugar Corp., code No. S88-41); Phalaenopsis 'Taisuco Swan' × (P. 'Casablanca Dream' × (P. 'Hohoemi' × P. 'Grace Palm')) (code No. S88-89); Doritaenopsis 'I-Hsin Dreamer' × Phalaenopsis 'Taisuco Harmonylip' (code No. S88-104), and Phalaenopsis aphrodite. The plastochron was based on a 20-mm reference leaf length. Semilogarithmical plots of ln-transformed leaf lengths versus time and linear regression analysis were used to evaluate three criteria of the plastochron index. The results showed that leaves 39 of Phalaenopsis aphrodite and leaves 38 of the other cultivars grow exponentially (r2 values between 0.90 and 0.97). Therefore, leaves that fulfilled all three criteria for the plastochron index were leaves 35 of No. S88-41, leaves 34 of No. S88-89, leaves 56 of No. S88-104, and leaves 45 of Phalaenopsis aphrodite. However the plastochron index can not be used for the slow-growing Phalaenopsis, because two successive leaves could not be measured simultaneously during the exponential phase of leaf development. The average relative growth rate of 0.43 mm/week for Phalaenopsis aphrodite was significantly lower than that of the other three cultivars (0.52 mm/week); plastochron duration also showed significant variation among the four cultivars (P value = 0.0269). In addition, the linear relationship (r2 = 0.970.99) of the plastochron index plotted versus time indicates that the intervals between initiation of successive leaves was equal for each of four cultivars. Thus, for these cultivars of Phalaenopsis, leaves that emerge before the reproductive phase can not be fully assessed by the plastochron index.Key words: plastochron index, Phalaenopsis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".