Differences in Fruit Size, Postharvest Pathology and Phytochemicals between Irvingia gabonensis and Irvingia wombolu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irvingia (bush mango) species are economically important trees, but studies aimed at their prospect for domestication did not take into account the potential differences between members of the Genus. Hence fruit size, postharvest pathology and phytochemicals of I. gabonensis and I. wombolu were studied. Results showed that whilst the mean weight, length, width and thickness of fruits of I. gabonensis were 125.08g, 60.85mm, 62.66mm and 56.78mm, respectively, those obtained from I. wombolu were 86.08g, 54.23mm, 54.09mm and 50.97mm, respectively. Difference in brownish-black rot fruit disease between the two Irvingia species was not significant (P=0.05), but disease severity increased correspondingly with increase in storage days. Four genera of fungi (Aspergillus, Penicillium, Rhizopus and Mucor) were isolated from fruits of both Irvingia species, and I. wombolu was found to sustain a significantly lower fungal population (7.76E+07 cfu) than I. gabonensis (1.05E+08 cfu). High fungal population led to a correspondingly high severity of brownish-black rot disease. Fruits of both Irvingia species possessed all five phytochemicals (alkaloids, flavonoids, saponins, tannins and glucosides). However, whilst both species had the same amounts of flavonoids and glycosides, I. wombolu possessed relatively higher amounts of alkaloids, saponins and tannins than I. gabonensis. I. wombolu may be the preferred choice if domestication would be based on phytochemicals. In like manner, I. gabonensis may be the preferred choice for domestication if taste, weight and size of fruits were the parameters of interest.
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 | 0.001 | 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".