MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745369706 · doi:10.5539/jas.v9n9p158

Off-Season Flower Induction in Mango Fruits Using Ethephon and Potassium Nitrate

2017· article· en· W2745369706 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Maloba, Jane Ambuko, M. J. Hutchinson, Willis Owino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostharvestEthephonPanicleBiologyPotassium nitrateHorticultureFruit setAgronomyPotassiumBotanyChemistryPollinationEthylene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonality in mango production is a major factor contributing to high postharvest losses reported in the value chain. Oversupply during the high season is one of the factors that contribute to the high postharvest losses (≥ 50%) in the supply chain in Kenya. Effective strategies to address seasonality can contribute significantly to postharvest loss reduction. Efficacy of two flower induction chemicals, potassium nitrate (KNO3) and ethephon on reproductive growth parameters and yield components were evaluated on two mango varieties: ‘Apple’ and ‘Ngowe’. KNO3 was applied at two concentrations (2 and 4%), and ethephon (600 and 1000 ppm) then compared to control (water). They were applied to trees which failed to flower/set fruit in 2014 season. There effect was established from reproductive growth parameters: days to flowering, number of panicles per tree, fruit set per 20 panicles, fruit fall and hormonal effect. KNO3 (4%) and ethephon increased percentage flowering in both ‘Ngowe’ and ‘Apple’ and AEZs (Agro-Ecological Zones), significantly (p < 0.05) shortened time to flowering and increased fruit set. The findings show that KNO3 and ethephon can be used to induce flowering/fruiting in mango fruits. These technologies can therefore be applied to induce off-season mango production to address seasonality and reduce postharvest losses during the peak season.

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)0.000
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 score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207