Postharvest needle abscission resistance of balsam fir (<i>Abies balsamea</i>) is modified by harvest date
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier harvest dates have become necessary for Canadian Christmas tree producers to meet international demand, though by harvesting these trees early they may experience poor needle retention. The objective of this study is to understand the effect of harvest date on needle retention and link those changes to cold acclimation. In one experiment, balsam fir trees with varied needle abscission resistance (NAR) were collected in October and in January and monitored for needle retention. This was repeated for 3 years. In a second experiment, 45 branches were collected each month from September to January and monitored for needle retention, xylem pressure, membrane injury, capacitance, and accumulation of galactose, raffinose, and abscisic acid. High-NAR trees had little improvement in needle retention from October to January, whereas low-NAR trees had significantly improved needle retention from October to January. Between September and January, there was an 85% increase in raffinose, 147% increase in galactose, 80% increase in abscisic acid, and 62% decrease in stem capacitance. Early harvest was not detrimental for all trees, and it appears that cold acclimation is linked to postharvest needle abscission, though cold acclimation does not adequately explain differences between NAR classes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".