MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280633338 · doi:10.21273/hortsci16547-22

Ethylene Inhibits Sprouting of Onion Bulbs during Long-term Storage

2022· article· en· W4280633338 on OpenAlexaff
Charles F. Forney, Kristen Cue, Sherry Fillmore

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGarlic and Onion Studies
Canadian institutionsNova Chemicals (Canada)Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthyleneSproutingCultivarAlliumElongationHorticultureEthephonLiliaceaeHydrazideChemistryBotanyBiologyMaterials scienceBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The protrusion of sprouts is a major cause of loss of dry onions ( Allium cepa L.) during extended storage. Sprouting is conventionally suppressed by treating onions with maleic hydrazide (MH) before harvest. More recently, ethylene was reported to inhibit sprout growth in stored onions, but commercial use of ethylene has been limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of ethylene on sprout suppression of five commercial cultivars of onions during storage and compare its effectiveness with and without MH treatment. Onions treated with MH were stored for up to 9 months at 1 °C in atmospheres with and without ethylene in a series of experiments conducted over six seasons. Differences in sprout elongation and protrusion were observed during storage in air among the five cultivars. Storage in ethylene was effective in inhibiting sprout elongation and root growth of onion bulbs in all cultivars, with concentrations of 7 µL·L −1 ethylene being more effective than 1 µL·L −1 ethylene. Delaying application of ethylene by 4 months was less effective in inhibiting sprout elongation than continuous treatment. Ethylene provided greater sprout suppression than MH treatments alone and could serve as a replacement for MH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicGarlic and Onion StudiesFrench-language works237,207