MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969292858 · doi:10.1093/sjaf/28.1.41

Effect of the Growth Regulator Uniconazole on Biomass Allocation of Bareroot Loblolly Pine Seedlings

2004· article· en· W2969292858 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew D. Barnes, David B. South

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingLoblolly pineShootBiomass (ecology)HorticulturePinus <genus>BiologyBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Improving seedling performance by reducing seedling height can be an important aspect of nursery management. The plant growth regulator uniconazole was applied to regulate height growth of nursery-grown loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings. Tests involving a foliar spray (0,0.125, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 kg ai/ha) or a wick application (0, 125, 250, 500, and 1000 ppm) were conducted in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The wick applicator consisted of a perforated plastic pipe covered with a sponge cylinder supplied by a reservoir. With both application methods, as the rate of uniconazole increased, seedling height, root-collar diameter, and biomass decreased. Compared to the controls, uniconazole decreased the percentage of seedlings with root-collar diameters greater than 4.7 mm. At lifting there was no difference among rates for root/shoot ratio, but root/shoot ratios of uniconazole treated seedlings increased significantly after outplanting. Eighteen months after outplanting, there were no treatment effects on seedling height or survival. Wick applications of uniconazole merit further research because of soil persistence and costs associated with spray applications. South. J. Appl. For. 28(1):41–47.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouthern Journal of Applied ForestrySame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207