Effect of Inflorescence Removal on Propagule Formation of Astilbe ×arendsii, Hemerocallis spp., and Hosta spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field experiments conducted in 2002 and 2003 evaluated the effects of timing of inflorescence removal on propagule formation, growth and development of Astilbe × arendsii , Hemerocallis spp. and Hosta spp . Four timings of inflorescence removal were tested: 1) no removal (control), 2) removal at inflorescence emergence, 3) removal at preflower, and 4) Removal at full flower. Propagule formation in Astilbe was not enhanced by inflorescence removal. Hemerocallis plants with their inflorescences removed at emergence produced 25% more divisions than plants with their inflorescences removed at preflower. For Hosta , plants with inflorescences removed at pre- and full flower produced respectively 40% and 53% more divisions than control plants. These results have economic implications for commercial bare-root production, which need to be verified on a larger field scale.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".