MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187766049 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.46.11.1460

Cold Temperature Tolerance of Trunk and Root Tissues in One- or Two-year-old Apple Rootstocks

2011· article· en· W2187766049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Renae E. Moran, Youping Sun, Fang Geng, Donglin Zhang, Gennaro Fazio

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRootstockHardiness (plants)MalusXylemHorticultureRosaceaeBiologyShootBotanyFruit treeCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Winter injury to the root systems of fruit trees can cause significant tree losses and yield reductions in the northern regions of the United States and Canada. To compare the root and trunk cold temperature tolerance, a series of experiments were conducted using ungrafted apple rootstocks. ‘Geneva® 11’ (G.11), ‘Geneva® 30’ (G.30), ‘Geneva® 41’ (G.41), ‘P.2’, and ‘Budagovsky 9’ (B.9) apple ( Malus × domestica Borkh.) rootstocks had root tissue hardiness similar to ‘M.26’, but ‘Geneva® 935’ (G.935) had greater cold-hardiness than M.26 when based on shoot regrowth in ungrafted trees. The LT 50 of M.26 and P.2 roots ranged from –12 to –14 °C. The LT 50 was –13 °C for B.9, –13.4 to –14.6 °C for G.30, and –12 °C for G.11. The LT 50 of G.41 was one of the highest in one experiment, –8 °C, and one of the lowest in another, colder than –15.0 °C. The LT 50 of G.935 roots was the lowest and ranged from –16 to –19 °C. Compared with M.26, trunk cold-hardiness in December was greater in B.9 and P.2 and was similar in G.30. Cold-hardiness of G.11 in December was mixed with less injury in the xylem but more injury in the phloem compared with M.26. In October, M.26 and G.935 trunks had little injury after exposure to –24 °C.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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