Zinc and boron nutrition management in fertigated high density apple orchards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental high density apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) block (1666 trees ha -1 ) on M.9 rootstock was planted in 1992 and maintained until 1996 as a randomized, replicated split-plot experiment with 5 N-K fertigation treatments, each with subplots containing four apple cultivars (Gala, Fuji, Fiesta, and Spartan). Management of Zn and B nutrition varied throughout the experiment ranging from no application (1992–1993) to foliar applications (1994) to fertigation of 3.5 g Zn tree -1 and 0.34 g B tree -1 during the growing season in 1995–1996. Deficient concentrations of Zn and B were measured in leaves and "blossom-blast" B deficiency symptoms were observed within 2 yr without applications of Zn or B . Foliar application of both nutrients increased their respective leaf concentrations and ameliorated B-deficiency symptoms. Zinc-fertigation in 1995–1996 failed to improve leaf Zn concentration. In contrast, B-fertigation at the same time readily increased root zone soil solution B concentrations and increased leaf B concentrations to values within the sufficient-optimum range for apple. Generally, cultivars responded similarly to B and Zn-treatments although, relative to other cultivars, Spartan had higher concentrations of Zn and B in leaves and Fuji had high leaf B. Key words: Fertigation, leaf boron and zinc, Malus × domestica Borkh., soil solution boron
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".