Boron Maintenance Sprays for Apple: Early-season Applications and Tank-mixing with Calcium Chloride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recommendations for boron (B) sprays in deciduous tree fruit orchards have changed little over the past 50 years. We conducted two 3-year field studies evaluating the effect of two modifications to the existing recommendation for B maintenance sprays on apple ( Malus × domestica ) tree nutritional status. A widely recommended Na polyborate-based commercial B spray product was used as the B source. Postbloom sprays of B applied at the recommended annual B maintenance rate of 0.56 kg·ha -1 to `Scarlet Gala' apple trees consistently increased fruit B concentration but had a weaker effect on leaf B concentration in early August, the recommended timing for sampling leaves for mineral element analysis. Applying half or all of the annual B maintenance rate in a spray at the pink flowering stage increased flower cluster and early-season leaf B concentrations as well as having positive effects on fruit and leaf B concentrations. The pink sprays increased flower cluster Na concentration but had no effect on leaf and fruit Na concentrations. In the second study, one-quarter of the annual B fertilizer requirement was tank-mixed with each of four biweekly CaCl 2 sprays applied starting in early June for bitter pit control. This treatment consistently increased `Scarlet Gala' fruit B concentration but had a lesser effect on August leaf B concentration. It did not interfere with fruit Ca status, and increased both fruit and leaf Na concentrations. Leaf Na concentration in all treatments was substantially lower than levels associated with specific Na toxicity of deciduous fruit trees. The results of these experiments indicate that applying B sprays at the pink flowering stage timing and tank-mixing B with CaCl 2 sprays applied for bitter pit control are useful practices to enhance B spray efficacy and convenience of application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".