Changes in sugars and phenolics concentrations of Williams pear leaves during the growing season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaves of Williams pear were collected during the growing season from May to October and the contents of sugars and phenolic compounds were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography method. Sorbitol was the major sugar (up to 83.8 g kg -1 DW), followed by sucrose (up to 22.1 g kg -1 DW). Concentrations of glucose and fructose were as high as 12.9 and 9.0 g kg -1 DW, respectively. Leaves contained up to 29 471.9 mg kg -1 DW of chlorogenic acid, followed in concentration by rutin (up to 6789.2 mg kg -1 DW), epicatechin (up to 7378.0 mg kg -1 DW), catechin (up to 3846.5 mg kg -1 DW), vanillic acid (up to 1832.1 mg kg -1 DW), syringic acid (up to 1123.5 mg kg -1 DW), caffeic acid (up to 122.5 mg kg -1 DW) and sinapic acid (up to 94.1 mg kg -1 DW). The significant differences in concentration of sorbitol, sucrose, glucose, and in all analyzed phenolics were observed during the growing season (six sampling dates). The lowest concentrations in the leaf were found at the beginning of the growing season in May and June. The highest contents of sugars were in October, with the exception of sorbitol. During the growing season, total phenolic content first increased, then declined. Chlorogenic acid, rutin and caffeic acid contents increased until July, vanillic acid and sinapic acid until August, and catechin, epicatechin and syringic acid until September. However, total phenolic content dropped by 50% from September to October. Key words: Pear leaves, sugars, phenolics, growing season
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".