Variation in leaf and bud soluble sugar concentration among <i>Vitis</i> genotypes grown under two temperature regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soluble sugar accumulation was determined in the grape (Vitis spp.) cultivars Frontenac, Couderc 3309, Concord, Cabernet Franc, Traminette and Seyval grown under two temperature regimes. Shoot growth slowed under cold temperature regimes in all cultivars except Concord, which was the least responsive. Among all sugars, raffinose showed distinctive responses associated with the two temperature regimes. Under a non-acclimating temperature regime, raffinose concentrations were low and similar among cultivars, whereas under cold acclimating temperature regimes raffinose accumulation was generally higher, and cold-hardy cultivars accumulated higher concentrations than did cold-sensitive cultivars. Basal leaves and buds accumulated the most raffinose. Cabernet Franc vines exhibited no differences in sugar accumulation at different stages of development. The results suggest that raffinose accumulation might be an early step in the process of cold acclimation that coincides with slowed shoot growth, and may precede the onset of dormancy and freezing tolerance. Leaf raffinose concentration might be useful as a detection tool to distinguish various Vitis genotypes with contrasting freezing tolerance. Key words: Bud, cold acclimation, leaf, raffinose, Vitis
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".