MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176821730 · doi:10.4141/cjps2012-014

Vegetative propagation of kura clover: A field-scale test

2012· article· en· W2176821730 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John M. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhizomeAgronomyVegetative reproductionPropaguleManureBiomass (ecology)ForageBiologyLegumeBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baker, J. M. 2012. Vegetative propagation of kura clover: a field-scale test. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 1245–1251. Kura clover (Trifolium ambiguum M. Bieb.) is a potentially valuable forage legume, but it has been underutilized. A major reason is the difficulty of establishing it from seed. Since kura is rhizomatous, there have been attempts to propagate it vegetatively, but no reports of success at the field scale. Two harvesting methods were tested to transplant material from a mature 17-ha field to a newly tilled 17-ha field: a bermudagrass sprigger that harvests bare rhizome sprigs, and a potato digger that harvests crowns and rhizomes, along with soil. The harvested propagules were distributed over the new field in July 2010 with a manure spreader, then disked and packed. Survival and growth were observed for the remainder of 2010 and through 2011, and recovery of the source field was also monitored. The material harvested with the sprigger did not compete well with weeds and had virtually disappeared by midsummer 2011, but the material harvested with the potato digger thrived, steadily increasing to nearly 80% of the biomass in the new field by the 3rd cutting in summer 2011. Properly done, vegetative propagation is a viable option for kura clover establishment.

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)0.001
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 score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207