MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104431429 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.7.1215

Trellising System and Cane Density Affect Yield and Fruit Quality of Red Raspberry

2000· article· en· W2104431429 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justine E. Vanden Heuvel, John Proctor, J. Alan Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaneTrellis (graph)CanopyMicroclimateBlowing a raspberryRubusYield (engineering)HorticultureAgronomyMathematicsBotanyBiologyFood scienceEcologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trellising and cane density treatments were applied to vigorous raspberry ( Rubus idaeus L.) cv. Titan plants in Southern Ontario to determine their effects on yield, yield potential, and canopy microclimate during the 1997 and 1998 seasons. The trellising treatments compared were hedgerow (control), V-trellis, and single-sided shift-trellis (shift-trellis). Cane densities (9, 16, 23, and 30 canes/m 2 ) were established before budbreak each season. The treatments significantly affected yield and yield components. Path analysis indicated that interrelationships among yield components were significantly affected by trellising system. In the second season, plants trained on the V-trellis yielded more than did those in a hedgerow system, while those trained on a shift-trellis had the lowest yield because of a smaller fruiting framework. Fruit quality was lower on the shifttrellis than in the other two systems. These differences were related to light penetration into the three canopies. While an optimum cane density was not found for any system, the maximum cane density (30 canes/m 2 ) produced the highest yields. Yield potential per cane decreased as cane density increased; however, the increase in cane number compensated for this decrease, resulting in an increase in total yield per unit area. Fruit quality also decreased as cane density increased, but cane density did not affect canopy microclimate.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207