Vegetative propagation of cannabis by stem cuttings: effects of leaf number, cutting position, rooting hormone, and leaf tip removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the influence of several factors and their interactive effects on the propagation success of stem cuttings of cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.). Factors included (i) leaf number (two or three), (ii) leaf tip removal (one-third of leaf tips removed), (iii) basal/apical position of stem cutting on the stock plant, and (iv) rooting hormone [0.2% indole-3-butyric (IBA) acid gel or 0.2% willow (Salix alba L.) extract gel]. Cuttings were placed in a growth chamber for twelve days and then assessed on their rooting success rate and root quality using a relative root quality scale. The IBA gel delivered a 2.1× higher rooting success rate and 1.6× higher root quality than the willow extract. Removing leaf tips reduced rooting success rate from 71% to 53% without influencing root quality. Cuttings with three leaves had 15% higher root quality compared with those with two, but leaf number did not influence rooting success rate. Position of cutting had little effect on rooting success or quality. To achieve maximum rooting success and root quality, cuttings from either apical or basal positions should have at least three fully expanded uncut leaves and the tested IBA rooting hormone is preferred to the willow-based product.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".