MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093577437 · doi:10.4141/p02-114

Leaf absorption, withdrawal and remobilization of autumn-applied urea-N in apple

2004· article· en· W2093577437 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
S. Guak, D. Neilsen, Peter Millard, Norman E. Looney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWashington Tree Fruit Research Commission
KeywordsUreaMalusHorticulturePetalBudFruit setRosaceaeChemistryBotanyBark (sound)Fruit treeBiologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six-year-old well-nourished Jonagold/M9 apple (Malus domestica) trees were sprayed 7 d after harvest with a 2% urea solution enriched with 9.9% atom 15N. Through 3 d of the absorption period, leaves absorbed 19.2% of the intercepted urea 15N. This low absorption could be in part due to unfavourable conditions, i.e., low temperatures (daily mean ≈5°C) and windy conditions following treatment. During leaf senescence, 48% of the urea 15N absorbed was withdrawn from leaves and most of that (95%) remained in the treated branch section. Of this portion, 65% of the urea 15N was found in dormant bark, 29% in wood, and 6% in flower buds. In the following spring, 46% of the stored urea 15N was remobilized for growth of the flower buds when sampled at the “pink” stage of bud development. This accounted for 3.8% of total N in these tissues. This contribution did not influence flower quality, estimated by the length of the period between flower opening and petal fall and the level of fruit set. Key words: Malus × domestica, urea-15N, flower bud growth, fruit set

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207