Rootstocks affect pear (Pyrus communis) tree growth through extent of node neoformation and flowering with key differences to apple
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improved knowledge of rootstock effects on pear (Pyrus communis L.) tree development is required before early assessment of rootstock breeding populations can be improved. Two cultivars, 'Doyenné du Comice' and 'Concorde', were grafted on Pyrus calleryana Decne. (vigorous), Quince BA29 (semi-vigorous) and Quince C (semi-dwarfing) rootstocks. Growth of the compound trees was studied over 2 years after grafting and flowering was recorded in the spring of the third year. Using architectural analysis, annual shoot types common to all treatments and closely connected to the patterns of extension of preformed and neoformed metamers were identified and the differences among rootstock vigour treatments were quantified by proportions of these shoot types. Rootstock affected node neoformation, which was highest in the treatment with P. calleryana. The extent of sylleptic branching varied among the treatments, whereas the budbreak along the primary-axis in the second year of growth was unaffected, hence, the number of proleptic secondary axes was largely determined the primary-axis node number developed in year one. Spring flowering first occurred in the third year of tree growth and its intensity was influenced by rootstock. Quince C, the least vigorous rootstock, produced the highest number of floral buds. Flowering was delayed in young pear trees compared with apple, as shown in previous studies, so we conclude flowering does not play such a pivotal role in secondary axes development and early tree dwarfing by rootstock as has been observed in apple.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it