Effect of Size of Polybag on Survival and Growth of Mango Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mango is the most important fruit crop of India’s western coast. Mango is commercially propagated by epicotyl grafting. Presently, epicotyl grafts are prepared in 6” × 8” poly bags which restrict root growth and such grafts take longer time for establishment in the field and growth is reduced. Hence, experiment was conducted for optimizing the size of poly bag for cv. Alphonso and Kesar for vigorous growth of epicotyl grafts. The investigation was undertaken in Randomized Block Design with four treatments viz. T1-10” × 14” bags (Alphonso grafts), T2-10” × 14” bags (Kesar grafts), T3-6’’ × 8’’ bags (Alphonso grafts), T4-6’’ × 8’’ bags (Kesar grafts) replicated five times with a unit of 200 grafts per treatment per replication. The sprouting and survival percentage was not affected by size of bags. Among all the treatments, the larger size bags of T1 and T2 improved the vigour of grafts remarkably by producing longer tap root, greater root spread and more number of secondary roots with increased plant height, girth at collar, number of leaves per graft and plant spread over the small sized bags in treatment T3 and T4. The RGR recorded in T1 and T2 was better than that of T3 and T4.
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 | 0.001 | 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".