MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783494251 · doi:10.5539/sar.v7n1p137

Effect of Pot Volume on the Growth of Sweetpotato Cultivated in the New Hydroponic System

2018· article· en· W2783494251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masaru Sakamoto, Takahiro Suzuki

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroponicsIpomoeaDry weightFibrous root systemRoot systemHorticultureBiologyAgronomyChemistryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydroponics is an effective means for promoting plant growth as it facilitates water and nutrient uptake by plant roots. For increasing the production of sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas), we developed the new hydroponic cultivation system in which tuberous roots were grown in solid media in the pots whereas fibrous roots were grown in the nutrient solution. Using this method, the effect of pot volume (1.6, 3.0, and 4.5 L) on the growth of sweetpotato was investigated. When plants were grown in small-sized pots (1.6 L), the fresh weight of the top and that of tuberous roots were decreased compared with plants grown in 3.0 L and 4.5 L pots. No clear difference was observed between the top and the tuberous roots in terms of the dry weight ratio, regardless of the pot size. The number of tuberous roots per plant and the maximum tuberous root weight were not influenced by the pot size either. However, the number of tuberous roots weighing more than 100 g was decreased in plants grown in small pots. Some of the tuberous roots grown in this hydroponic system contained a non-hypertrophic parts with severely lignified metaxylems. These results suggest that the environment surrounding the tuberous root influenced by the pot volume may be important for root enlargement in this hydroponic system.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207