Silicon Supplements Affect Horticultural Traits of Greenhouse-produced Ornamental Sunflowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In greenhouse production, most floricultural crops are cultivated in soilless substrates, which often supply limited amounts of plant-available silicon (Si). The goal of this study was to determine the effects of Si supplementation on greenhouse-produced ornamental sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L. ‘Ring of Fire’). Potassium silicate (KSiO 3 ) substrate incorporation or weekly substrate drenches, sodium silicate (NaSiO 3 ) foliar applications, and rice husk ash substrate incorporation were used as Si supplements. Silicon content of Si-treated plants increased compared with untreated controls. Depending on the source and concentration of silicon supplied, several horticultural traits were improved as a result of Si supplementation. Thick, straight stems, increased flower and stem diameters, and increased height were observed in some of the treatments, upgrading sunflower quality compared with untreated controls. However, growth abnormalities were observed when concentrations of 100 and 200 mg·L −1 Si were supplied as KSiO 3 substrate drenches. In these treatments, plants appeared stunted with deformed flowers and were delayed in flowering. Consequently, Si supplementation effects on greenhouse-produced sunflowers can vary from beneficial to detrimental depending on the applied source and concentration.
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) | 0.001 | 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".