Fertigation and Crop Load Affect Yield, Nutrition, and Fruit Quality of ‘Lapins’ Sweet Cherry on Gisela 5 Rootstock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Lapins’ sweet cherry ( Prunus avium L.) on Gisela 5 ( Prunus cerasus × Prunus canescens ) rootstock were subjected to a factorial combination of two crop load and eight fertigation treatments from the sixth to the eight growing seasons. Crop load treatments included full crop and dormant spur thinning to remove and maintain 50% of fruiting spurs. The eight fertigation treatments, which had been maintained since the first growing season, included low (42 mg·L −1 ), medium (84 mg·L −1 ), and high (168 mg·L −1 ) concentrations of N applied by sprinkler fertigation of Ca(NO 3 ) 2 annually ≈8 weeks postbloom. The medium N concentration was also applied with P fertigated in early spring or K fertigated in June. A standard N treatment involved broadcast application of NH 4 NO 3 in early spring at 75 kg·ha −1 also followed with medium N sprinkler-fertigated postharvest in August. The medium N concentration was also supplied for 8 weeks postbloom through drip emitters. Removal of 50% of fruiting spurs decreased annual yield on average by only 10%. Average fruit size could be increased in years of high crop load (greater than 400 g fruit/cm 2 trunk cross-sectional area), but in a year of low crop load (less than 100 g fruit/cm 2 ), fruit size was very large (averaging greater than 14 g) and unaffected by crop load adjustment. Minimal effects on fruit and leaf NPK concentrations, fruit firmness, soluble solids concentration (SSC), and titratable acidity (TA) were associated with yield reductions of 10%. Fertigation treatments resulted in a large range in tree vigor and yield during the experiment. High N applications reduced tree and fruit size and fruit TA and were undesirable. Annual P and K fertigation by sprinklers was generally ineffective, having minimal effects on tree PK nutrition and fruit quality with the exception of increased fruit firmness associated with P fertigation in 2005, when yield was low. Drip-fertigated trees were small, frequently had fruit with elevated SSC, but had deficient leaf K concentrations in 2004 implying a need to fertigate K when drip-irrigating.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".