MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098424752 · doi:10.4141/p03-027

Tolerance of lowbush blueberries (<i>Vaccinium angustifolium</i> Ait.) to drought stress. I. Soil water and yield component analysis

2005· article· en· W2098424752 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
V. M. Glass, David Percival, John Proctor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVacciniumIrrigationVegetative reproductionBiologyAgronomyWater contentBerryHorticultureEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 2-yr field study examining the effects of drought conditions on the vegetative and reproductive components of the lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) was completed at the Nova Scotia Wild Blueberry Institute (NSWBI), Debert, NS, in 1998 and 1999. Drought and irrigation treatments were applied over 2 yr in either or both the vegetative and cropping years of production. In general, during the 2-yr study of the vegetative stage, soil moisture levels in the uppermost 0- to 15-cm depth were low (5 to 22%) due to lack of rainfall and increased plant demand. Although berry weight was not affected by drought treatments, berry number was &gt; 50% higher in response to irrigation in both the vegetative and cropping years. From yield component analysis, it was concluded that node number increased at the expense of floral zone length in response to drought-stress. It appeared that the wild blueberry has adapted to partition its resources into vegetative growth under soil moisture limiting conditions, and into reproductive growth when moisture levels are sufficient. Key words: Yield, path analysis, irrigation, drought

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207