Effects of variety, storage container, and duration on the physical properties, oil content, germination capacity, and seed loss due to <i>Plodia interpunctella</i> infestation of Ethiopian sesame
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Owing to fluctuations of international market prices and excess supply during peak harvesting seasons, farmers and traders often suffer from a low market price of sesame. Such a negative impact can be ameliorated by taking advantage of times with a better market price during the off season. This study aimed to investigate the impact of different storage containers on gravimetric properties and germination capacities of five different sesame varieties as well as their impact on Indian meal moth (Plodia interpunctella). RESULTS: There were differences among the types of storage containers in terms of moisture content, oil content, thousand seed weight, and germination capacity with the storage duration. However, in terms of bulk density, true density, and porosity, the results were consistent. On average, a few losses in thousand seed weight for varieties stored in Purdue Improved Crop Storage bags (1.7%), metal silos (2.4%), and GrainPro bags (3.4%) were observed during 12 months' storage compared with polypropylene bags (17%). The difference among sesame varieties in terms of weight loss and loss of webbing due to P. interpunctella varied with storage duration. On average, about 9.4% weight loss and 5.7% loss due to webbing was measured for seed stored in polypropylene bags due to the natural infestation of P. interpunctella. No pest was found in hermetic containers. CONCLUSION: In general, to fetch better market prices, the use of hermetic storage is more efficient to maintain the desired gravimetric properties and to prevent losses due to P. interpunctella infestation compared with the commonly used woven polypropylene bags. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".