Wind reduces growth and yield but not net leaf photosynthesis of primocane-fruiting red raspberries (<i>Rubus idaues</i> L.) in the establishment years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four primocane-fruiting (PF) red raspberry cultivars, Bogong, Autumn Cascade, Heritage and Dinkum, were grown in exposed or sheltered (50% permeable artificial windbreak) sites fully exposed to prevailing winds in Bouctouche, NB. Shelters were erected at the beginning and removed at the end of each growing season. In the establishment year, all cultivars were evaluated to determine the effects of wind stress on their vegetative and reproductive development and leaf gas exchange. since all cultivars responded similarly to the effect of wind in year one, only Dinkum was monitored in years two and three. In all years, the artificial windbreak resulted in an overall 35% reduction in wind velocity, increased the number of calm days (<5.4 km h−1) and decreased the incidence of strong breezes (>36 km h−1). Interestingly in this maritime climate, the artificial windbreak did not have much of an effect on altering relative humidity, vapour pressure deficits, or air or soil temperature. Plants from sheltered sites consistently had greater above-ground biomass (especially cane dry weight) and longer cane internodes. For two of the three years, leaf area and yield were also greater in the sheltered sites. Leaf gas exchange parameters (Pn, gs and Ci), expressed per unit of leaf area, did not differ between treatments for most of the season, but the sheltered plants retained more leaf area and thus had the potential to fix a greater amount of carbon than the exposed plants. The larger, sheltered plants produced a more extensive fruiting framework, which resulted in increased yields in both the establishment and subsequent year. It is recommended to shelter raspberry plants from wind in the initial establishment years. Key words: Rubus idaeus L., fall-bearing, autumn fruiting, windbreak
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".