Vegetative Propagation of Gabirobeira Associate to Indolbutyric Acid in Different Seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The propagation of gabirobeira is carried out by seeds. However, the recalcitrance and not tolerance of the seeds to the storage compromise the formation of seedlings. Thus, the propagation by cuttings can be an option, being able to provide significant results in different seasons. The objective of this work was to evaluate the vegetative propagation by stem cuttings of two species of gabirobeira (Campomanesia adamantium and Campomanesia pubescens) associate to indolbutyric acid (IBA) at differents seasons of the year. Cuttings of the two species were obtained in the 4 seasons and concentrations of 0, 2000, 4000, 6000 and 8000 mg L-1 of IBA were used, by immersion in the solution for 15 seconds and sequentially staked on trays containing a sand substrate. Sixty days after experiments were set it was evaluated the percentage of cuttings with shoots, live cuttings, dead cuttings, cuttings with calluses and rooted cuttings. A completely randomized design with 5 treatments, 4 replicates and 8 cuttings per plot was adopted. During the whole experiment, the greenhouse, substrate and cutting leaves temperature was monitored. The use of IBA did not promote adventitious rhizogenesis, but provided a high percentage of survival for the species Campomanesia adamantium and Campomanesia pubescens by stem cuttings during the spring 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".