MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906909791 · doi:10.5586/aa.1755

Impact of effective microorganisms on weed infestation and yield of peppermint cultivated on muck-peat soil

2018· article· en· W2906909791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrzej Borowy, Magdalena Kapłan, Marcela Krawiec

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Agrobotanica · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssential oilWeedHorticultureMentha arvensisBiologySowingHerbMuckAgronomyPopulationMenthoneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peppermint (<em>Mentha ×piperita</em> L.) rootstock cuttings with 9–11 internodes were planted on April 10, 2014 in rows 50 cm apart and with 25-cm distance in the row, on well fertilized muck-peat soil containing 82.1% of organic matter with a pH of 5.9. Peppermint plants were sprayed once with an activated EM-1 preparation, then on two or three further occasions as follows: at 10 cm height (May 10), at branching stage (May 29), and during rapid growth (June 19). EM did not affect peppermint growth or yield. Yields of the fresh and dry herb were high (means: 15,563 and 2,661 kg ha<sup>−1</sup>, respectively) and characterized by a medium (1.85–1.90%) essential oil content in the dry herb. Twenty-nine compounds were identified in the oil and its main components were menthol (53.1–58.5%), menthone (14.6–16.8%), isomenthone (6.3–6.7%), menthyl acetate (4.0–5.0%), germacrene D (2.3–3.4%), ß-caryophyllene (1.8–2.4%), viridiflorol (1.5–2.3%), and 1,8-cyneole (0.3–3.7%). EM did not affect the content of essential oil in the dry herb or the oil composition (except for 1,8-cyneole). Thirty-four days after planting, 22 weed species grew in the experimental plots and the dominant were common meadow grass (<em>Poa pratensis</em> L.) accounting for 20% of total weed population, annual meadow grass (<em>Poa annua</em> L.) 17%, common chickweed [<em>Stellaria media</em> (L.) Vill.] 20%, creeping yellowcress [<em>Rorippa sylvestris</em> (L.) Besser] 8%, hairy galinsoga [<em>Galinsoga ciliata</em> (Raf.) S. F. Blake] 7%, gallant soldiers (<em>Galinsoga parviflora</em> Cav.) 6%, Canadian horseweed [<em>Conyza canadensis</em> (L.) Cronq.] 6%, common groundsel (<em>Senecio vulgaris</em> L.) 5%, and annual nettle (<em>Urtica urens</em> L.) 5%. Other species occurred sporadically. The total number and fresh weight of weeds growing on 1 m<sup>2</sup> were 412 and 246 g on plots treated with EM and 389 and 227 g on control plots, respectively, but the differences were not statistically significant.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa AgrobotanicaSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207