GROWTH PERFORMANCE OF TISSUE-CULTURED ´LAKATAN´ BANANA (MUSA ACUMINATA) PLANTLETS USING STIMULANTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to determine the effects of stimulants on the growth performance of tissue-cultured 'lakatan' banana plantlets (Musa acuminata) under nursery condition; to determine the best treatment combination that will increase the growth performance of tissue-cultured 'lakatan' banana plantlets; and to determine the economic benefits of using stimulants in tissue-cultured 'lakatan' banana plantlets. The study was laid out in a Complete Randomized Design (CRD) with seven treatments and replicated thrice with eight samples per replicate. The treatments were; T1- Control (No Application); T2- Conventional Practice (CP) (5 grams N-PK every 15 days); T3- Bio-Forge (5 ml/ liter water foliar application); T4- CP + Bio-Forge (0.125 grams of N-P-K + 5 ml of Bio-Forge/ liter water); T5- CP + Stimulate (5 grams of N-P-K + 10 ml of Stimulate/ liter water); T6- Bio-Forge + Stimulate (5 ml of Bio-Forge/ L. of water + 10 ml of Stimulate/liter water); T7- CP+ Bio-Forge+ Stimulate (5 grams of N-P-K + 5 ml of Bio-Forge/ liter water + 10 ml of Stimulate/ liter water). All data were analyzed through Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and differences among treatments were computed using Honest Significant (HSD) test. The results of the study revealed that the percentage of survival and pseudostem diameter at 15 Days after planting (DAP) was not significantly affected by different treatments. Plant height, length of leaves, width of leaves, pseudostem diameter (30 & 45), number of leaves, root length and number, fresh and dry weights at 15, 30 and 45 DAP have significant effects. The T7 - (Conventional Practice + Bio-Forge + Stimulate) significantly increased plant height by 7 times, width of leaves by 3 times, stem diameter by 6 times, root number by 3 times, fresh weight by 17 times which were comparable with T6- (Bio-Forge + Stimulate), T5- (CP + Stimulate), T4- (CP + Bio-Forge) and T3- (BioForge). The T3 (Bio-Forge) had the highest leaf length increase by 10 times, root length by 100% which is comparable to T5- (CP + Stimulate), T6- (CP + Stimulate) and T7- (CP + Bio-Forge + Stimulate). While T4- (CP + Bio-Forge) had the heaviest dry weight by 28 times which is also comparable to T3 (Bio-Forge), T5 (CP + Stimulate), T6 (Bio-Forge + Stimulate) and T7- (CP + Bio-Forge + Stimulate).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".