Hydroponic Minituber Production in Growth Room Conditions and Carry-Over Effects of the Technique on Produced Minitubers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The production of minitubers was implemented with a hydroponic technique in growth rooms and the carry-over effects of the technique on the characteristics of minitubers were studied. As a comparison, minitubers from in vitro plantlets were grown in a peat-based growing medium. The results show that hydroponic production of minitubers is successful in indoor conditions with the cultivars Desiree, Van Gogh and Asterix, when day-time growing temperatures of 19.4 <sup>o</sup>C-26.0 <sup>o</sup>C and night-time temperatures of 17.5 <sup>o</sup>C-22.6 <sup>o</sup>C were used. Photosynthetically active illumination was adequate at 2383-2509 umol m<sup>-2</sup>s<sup>-1</sup>; lighting conditions consisted of 14/10-hour day/night cycles.</p><p>The cultivars Desiree and Van Gogh developed their first tuber three weeks faster than Asterix, and the minituber yield was 4.5 per plant for Desiree, 7.5 for Van Gogh and 4.0 for Asterix. When a peat-based growing medium was used, minituber yields were almost the same but the size of the minitubers was smaller than that of hydroponically produced minitubers. The results of the carry-over experiments showed that conventionally produced minitubers emerged faster, and in terms of foliage development and yielding capacity performed better than hydroponically produced minitubers.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".