Timing, magnitude and causes of flower and immature fruit loss in pin cherry and choke cherry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L.) and choke cherry (Prunus virginiana L.) are two wild fruit species with potential for commercial production, but information about fruit production is limited. The objectives of this study were to determine, for both species, the timing and magnitude of flower and immature fruit loss, and to determine the primary causes of this loss, including the effects of pollen source and supplemental pollination. Sequential sampling of both pin cherry and choke cherry indicated that the primary period of abscission occurred during the first 3 wk following full bloom. Final fruit set ranged from 32.6 to 44.7% of flower number for pin cherry, and from 3.7 to 20.1% for choke cherry. Insect damage accounted for only 14% of the total observed flower and fruit abscissions in pin cherry and 7% in choke cherry. The major insect pest causing this loss in pin cherry was a sawfly (Hoplocampasp., Tenthredinidae) and in choke cherry, a leaf-roller (Archips argyrospila, Tortricidae). A controlled pollination experiment was used to determine the effects of pollen source and supplemental pollination on pin cherry and choke cherry. Final fruit set for flowers that were cross-pollinated by hand in both pin cherry (mean of 51.3%) and choke cherry (mean of 56.9%) in most cases was significantly greater than flowers that were open-pollinated, self-pollinated, or not pollinated. These data suggested that the majority of flower and immature fruit loss in both pin cherry and choke cherry resulted from a lack of pollination and/or fertilization. Key words: Choke cherry, pin cherry, flower loss, immature fruit loss, pollination, insect damage
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".