Effects of nitrogen application on flavor compounds of cherry tomato fruits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A pot experiment was conducted to determine the effects of N application on volatile compounds, taste compounds, and firmness of fresh tomato fruits. Each pot was filled with 8 kg of clean sand. The experiment consisted of six nitrogen (N)‐application rates with 0, 2.25, 4.50, 9.00, 18.00, and 36.00 mmol N L–1 in the nutrient solution. Volatile compounds, soluble sugars, soluble solids, titratable acidity, and firmness of fresh tomato fruits were measured. The results show that increasing N application increased the concentrations of 1‐penten‐3‐one, hexanal, cis‐3‐hexenal, 2‐methyl‐4‐pentenal, trans‐2‐hexenal, 6‐methyl‐5‐hepten‐2‐one, titratable acidity, soluble sugars, and soluble solids. By contrast, increasing N supply decreased the concentration of phenylacetaldehyde and first increased and then decreased the concentrations of 2E–4E‐hexadienal and the firmness of fresh tomato fruits. Close relationships between the concentration of various volatile compounds, titratable acidity, soluble sugars, and soluble solids were found. However, concentrations of these flavor compounds were very poorly correlated with fruit firmness. Based on contributions of these compounds to tomato flavor, we assume that moderate high N supply improves tomato flavor, whereas excessive N supply can deteriorate it.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".