Effect of Different Rates of Liquid Trichoderma harzianum on Growth Enhancement of Tissue Cultured Abaca Seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of different rates of liquid Trichoderma harsianum on the growth enhancement of tissue-cultured Abaca seedlings. There are six treatments replicated four (4) times with 5 samples per replication. The following were the treatment: T0-control, T1- 50 ml of L.T, T2- 40 ml of L.T, T3-30 ml of L.T, T4- 20 ml of L.T, and T5-10ml of L.T/liter of water. Based on the results, it did not successfully reject the null hypothesis on plant height, pseudostem girth, leaf count per plant, leaf area per plant, and the number of primary roots of Abaca seedlings treated with liquid Trichoderma harsianum. While the two parameters successfully rejected the null hypothesis, there is highly significant that developed greater lengths for their shoot and root lengths treated with liquid Trichoderma harsianum. When compared to the control, the use of Liquid Trichoderma harsianum can significantly increase abaca growth. Treatment 3 of Abaca seedlings with 30 ml of liquid Trichoderma harsianum was the most effective of the five treatments with this substance. The correlation between treatments and parameters is also favorable.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".