AUTECOLOGICAL AND GREENHOUSE STUDY OF WILD AND CULTIVATED HASKAP (Lonicera caerulea L.) IN SASKATCHEWAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haskap (Lonicera caerulea) is a new crop for much of the world including Canada. This study investigated Haskap’s autecological conditions in three habitats in Saskatchewan and utilized some of that information to design greenhouse experiments to better understand environmental and soil interactions for this crop. The hypothesis of this study was that environmental factors associated with the growth of wild Haskap and greenhouse studies with the cultivar ‘Tundra’ could improve the production practices of cultivated Haskap. This thesis may be the first study to investigate L.c. autecology, pH levels in hydroponics and greenhouse fruit production. Average in situ shoot growth of L.c. ssp. villosa varied significantly among the study areas. The site with peat/organic soil had greater macronutrient levels and greater shoot growth compared to the two sites with forest Luvisol soil. The site with organic soil had soil temperatures with a daily average of 4.0-12.9°C, air temperatures 8.1-19.4°C, relative humidity 58.6-91.3% and rainfall averages of 80 mm during May to July. Seven L.c. subspecies and the cultivar ‘Tundra’ were grown hydroponically in pH levels ranging from 5 to 9. Dry weights of leaves, stems and roots were measured. The influence of pH on growth was significant for all genotypes with each genotype having the highest dry weights at pH 6 and the lowest at pH 9. Subspecies stenantha and ‘Tundra’ had significantly greater growth than the other genotypes. Two-year-old ‘Tundra’ seedlings fertilized with a higher rate of N, P, K (1762.5, 334.5 and 403.5 mg/kg respectively) was significantly higher with a total dry weight of 38.27 g per plant compared to the 24.11 g per plant of the control. It was demonstrated that ‘Tundra’ and Japanese originated seedlings could produce fruit in a winter and spring greenhouse. Compared to field studies, ‘Tundra’ fruit was a bit smaller in size, but soluble solids and acidity levels were similar. Lower temperatures and use of bumble bees as pollinators were factors contributing to the success in greenhouse production.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".