156 Effects of the Inductive Period, Shoot Density, and Leaf Removal on the Flowering of Heliconia rostrata Ruiz & Pavon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heliconia rostrata is a herbaceous-musoid sympodial rhizomatous plant that grows as clump. After three leaves are produced, each shoot of the clump may bear an inflorescence if it is induced by short days (SD). However, the relationship between shoot density and flowering has not been quantified. To evaluate the effects of the inductive period, number of shoots, and leaf removal on flowering, rhizomes were planted in 120 pots (8 L). One-third of the pots were planted with two rhizomes, while the remainder was planted with one. One-half of the pots with one rhizome were allowed to develop all their shoots for three generations, while in the remaining pots only one shoot per generation was allowed to grow. In addition, one-half of the plants in all the treatments were subjected to selective leaf removal. The plants were grown under long days (LD) >13 h in a glasshouse until four leaves were produced. Inductive SD was supplied to all the plants from 5:00 pm to 8:00 am . After 8 weeks of SD, one-half of the plants were given LD, while the other half continued under SD (conSD) until flowering. The highest percentage of flowering shoots (39% to 35%) was observed in plants under conSD; plants under SD-LD were 10% to 9%. The second generation of shoots showed the highest flowering (74% conSD and 21% SD-LD), followed by the first (62% conSD and 18% SD-LD), and third (31% conSD and 0% SD-LD) generations. Non-flowering shoots of the first generation were aborted or dead. Shoots of the third were still vegetative, since they had few leaves to be induced. Fewer flowers occurred in clumps allowed to develop all their shoots. Intact plants from rhizomes with one shoot per generation flowered more than the partially defoliated ones under conSD.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".