RESPONS PERTUMBUHAN TANAMAN HIAS ANTHURIUM ‘GELOMBANG CINTA’ (Anthurium plowmanii) PADA BEBERAPA KONSENTRASI BAP DAN FREKUENSI PEMBERIAN PUPUK DAUN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ornamental plants anthurium wave love great demand of society because the leaves are beautiful, unique and interesting. The edges of the leaves of anthurium generally with characteristic wavy. Anthurium plant growth stimulation can be enhanced by the application of growth regulators BAP and foliar fertilizers. The purpose of this study was to obtain a concentration of growth regulators BAP and best foliar fertilizer for growing ornamental plants anthurium. Experiments was carried out in the plant tissue culture laboratory of the Faculty of Agriculture, Andalas University from November 2015 to February 2016. Materials used in the love wave anthurium seeds, plant media are a mixture of soil, sand, compost 1: 1: 1 (v / v). Two-factor factorial experiment arranged in completely randomized design with three replications. The first factor was the concentration of BAP (0, 2.5, 5.0 and 7.5 mg/L) and the second factor was the frequency of giving leaf fertilizer (0, 1, 2 times). The variables observed were plant height, leaf width, root length and fresh weight of plants. The data were analyzed by analysis of variance followed by Honestly Significant Difference test 5%. The results showed that there is an interaction between BAP and the frequency of leaf fertilizer application to plant height and root length. The best BAP 2.50 mg/L for leaf width growth and 5.0 mg/L best to increase the fresh weight of plants. The best BAP concentration of 2.50 mg/L for leaf width growth and 5.0 mg/L is best for increasing the fresh weight of plants. Application of leaf fertilizer with a frequency of 2 times shows the highest plant height Keywords: Anthurium, BAP, Concentration, Foliar fertilizer, Frequency
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".