MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183124500 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.41.7.1596

Gibberellic Acid Inhibits Flowering and Reduces Hand Thinning of `Redhaven' Peach

2006· article· en· W2183124500 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elina D. Coneva, John A. Cline

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThinningGibberellic acidPrunusOrchardHorticultureCropRipeningCultivarBiologyFruit treeFructificationRosaceaeBotanyAgronomyGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adjusting the crop load of peaches [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] by hand thinning is currently required to ensure marketable size of most cultivars grown in Ontario. A novel approach to adjust cropping by inhibiting flowering using gibberellic acid (GA 3 ) was tested in an orchard experiment in which GA 3 was applied at 7, 10, and 13 weeks after full bloom to mature `Redhaven' peach trees. Late GA 3 treatments increased soluble solids concentration (SSC) in the season of application. A significant interaction between GA 3 rate and time of application was observed on increased fruit firmness in the current season. Increasing rates of GA 3 decreased flowering the following season in a quadratic fashion, resulting in a 41% to 90% diminished requirement for hand thinning. This translated into lower crop loads and yields for GA 3 -treated trees at harvest compared with untreated control trees. However, GA 3 -treated trees had larger mean fruit size and improved fruit size distribution the year after GA 3 application. Advanced fruit ripening was also evident by increased fruit SSC and decreased fruit firmness, likely an indirect effect of GA 3 on crop load. GA 3 application timing significantly increased overall tree growth measured by the changes in trunk cross-sectional area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207