Physicochemical properties of fruit of 16 saskatoon (<i>Amelanchier alnifolia</i> Nutt.) cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicochemical properties were assessed for the fruit of 16 saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt.) cultivars harvested in 1998–2000 from replicated trials at two sites (Saskatoon and Moonlake, SK). The cultivars included Bluff, Buffalo, Elizabeth (at Saskatoon only), Forestburg, Honeywood, JB30, Martin, Nelson, Northline, PAR 90, Parkhill, Pearson II, Pembina, Smoky, Success, and Thiessen. Fruit weight and total solids, soluble solids, pH, titratable acidity, anthocyanin content, and colour characteristics of the fruit juice extracts were measured. Fruit of Martin, Thiessen and PAR 90 had the highest fruit weights (mean = 1.63 g), and Success and Bluff the lowest (mean = 0.79 g). Total and soluble solids contents ranged among cultivars from 19.9% and 14.0 °Brix, respectively, for JB30, to 27.9% and 20.1 °Brix, respectively, for Pembina. Fruit pH ranged from 3.65 for Nelson to 4.18 for Parkhill and Smoky. Fruit of Nelson had a titratable acidity (0.63%) that was approximately twice that of Success, Pearson II, Forestburg, Honeywood, Smoky and Parkhill. The soluble solids to titratable acidity ratio (SS/TA) differed greatly among cultivars ranging from 27 for JB30 to 55 for Parkhill. The colour characteristics of the fruit juice extracts differed among cultivars in chroma and L values, but not in hue angle. Anthocyanin analysis by HPLC identified four peaks: cyanidin-3-galactoside, cyanidin-3- glucoside and two unknowns. Total fruit anthocyanin content ranged from 414 µg g -1 for Forestburg to 852 µg g -1 for Nelson. Correlations were found between anthocyanin content and fruit pH, titratable acidity, hue angle and L value. Key words: Amelanchier alnifolia, saskatoon, fruit composition, acidity, anthocyanin content
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".