A comparison of seed-propagated and micropropagated <i>Amelanchier alnifolia</i> (saskatoon): Yield and yield components in relation to crown architecture characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of the architecture and yield components of young micropropagated and seed-propagated Smoky saskatoons over a 4-yr period revealed no differences in height, but the diameters and branchiness ratings of the seedling plants were greater. In the 3 yr of fruit harvest there were no differences in mean fruit weight or fruit number between propagation types, but there was a difference among years. The yield was considerably greater in the third year of harvest (1996), possibly reflecting the natural tendency for yield to increase as the plants develop. In all 3 yr, fruit ripening peaked in July, with most fruit harvested within about a week on either side of the peak. Although there were strong correlations between the number of infructescences and both fruit weight and fruit number, there was little difference between propagation types. There were no relationships between main-stem diameter and the weight or number of fruit that the plant bore. However, there was a positive linear relationship between yield parameters and the diameter of the shoots bearing that portion of the crop in 1994 and 1995. Although not different between propagation types, terminal shoots were longer and greater in diameter and in 1995 bore three times more fruit yield than did lateral shoots. There were no differences between propagation types in the weight of fruit per infructescence or in the mean weight (0.71 ± 0.02 g) or diameter (10.81 ± 0.11 mm) per fruit. Key words: Fruit size, fruit number, Smoky, ripening period
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".