Efficacy of blossom thinning treatments to reduce fruit set and increase fruit size of Ambrosia and Aurora Golden Gala™ apples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hampson, C. and Bedford, K. 2011. Efficacy of blossom thinning treatments to reduce fruit set and increase fruit size of Ambrosia and Aurora Golden Gala™ apples. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 983–990. The usefulness of several blossom thinning treatments to reduce fruit set and improve the final fruit size of two new Canadian apple (Malus×domestica Borkh.) cultivars was investigated. Ambrosia and 8S6923 (also called Aurora Golden Gala™) apple trees in a high density commercial superspindle planting were used. Ammonium thiosulphate (ATS) at 1.6% vol/vol or Crocker's fish oil and lime sulphur (FOLS) at 2+2% vol/vol were applied at 20 and 80% full bloom with an airblast sprayer. The chemical blossom thinning treatments were compared with a positive control [hand blossom thinning (HBT)], done at open cluster to king bloom stage, and a negative control (no blossom thinning). All trees received follow-up hand thinning as necessary to end up with a commercial crop load (single fruits about 15 cm apart). Hand blossom thinning resulted in about 95% single-fruit clusters and obviated the need for further thinning, but required considerable labour. Both ATS and FOLS reduced initial set (fruit number per tree, mean fruit number per cluster), but neither eliminated the need for follow-up fruitlet thinning. The two chemicals had similar efficacy in many respects, but FOLS was superior in certain specific measures of performance. In 2009, ATS negatively altered the fruit size distribution for 8S6923. For 8S6923, HBT improved fruit size without reducing yield. Ambrosia fruit size was less responsive to blossom thinning, and in the second year, yield was lower for trees receiving HBT. No fruit russet occurred on either cultivar. Return bloom was sufficient for a full crop for both cultivars after both years. 8S6923 was more productive than Ambrosia but was more difficult to thin.
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".