MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181598536 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.36.6.1039

Factors Affecting Pollen Dispersal in High-density Apple Orchards

2001· article· en· W2181598536 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Kron, Brian C. Husband, Peter G. Kevan, Svenja Belaoussoff

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalusPollenOrchardBiologyTransectCultivarBiological dispersalHorticultureFruit treeBotanyPopulationEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of pollen dispersal is essential for maximizing cross-fertilization in apples ( Malus × domestica Borkh.) and achieving optimal orchard design. Using allozyme markers, we examined dispersal of pollen from trees of a single cultivar (`Idared') throughout two apple orchards. In each orchard, the percentage of seeds sired by `Idared' was estimated for trees sampled at regular intervals along three transects, extending up to 18 rows (86 m) from the closest donor trees. The percentage of seed sired by `Idared' pollen ranged from 76% to 1% of seed sampled for a row. No differences in pollen dispersal were found among transects, despite differences in proximity to the bee colonies. Variation in `Idared' siring success was attributable to the cultivar of the fruit-bearing trees as well as their distance to the nearest `Idared' tree. Cultivar effects were associated with differences in flowering overlap, but not cross-compatibility with the pollenizer. Furthermore, flowering overlap was a good predictor of siring success only when the flowering times of competing pollenizer cultivars were also considered. The implications for orchard design are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207