164 Combinations of Chemical Thinners for Bloom and Post-bloom Apple Thinning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effectiveness of pollination/fertilization inhibitors for flower thinning depends highly on the precise timing of sprays within 24 to 36 h after flower opening. In 1999, cool weather delayed the application of hormone-type thinners, which were intended for at bloom comparison with pollination/fertilization. Pollination inhibitors applied in bloom and hormone thinners applied at petal fall or 8 mm fruit diameter caused good fruit thinning. Ethephon applied in bloom did not cause thinning of `Empire' fruit, but Sevin + Accel + Oil caused good fruit thinning when applied in bloom. Sevin + Accel + Oil increase fruit diameter and did not affect fruit russet. Ethephon applied at 22 mm fruit diameter at water rates of 935 L/ha or 3741 L/ha and chemical rates of 21.5 L/ha or 42.9 L/ha did not cause significant fruit thinning. In 1998, pollination inhibitors and hormone-type growth regulators caused flower and fruit thinning of `Starkrimson'/MM111/106 trees. Good thinning occurred with both pollination inhibitors and ethephon treatments; but Sevin + Accel + oil was not as effective. Thinex caused the most side russet. Treatments that thinned generally caused increased fruit diameter. In 1999, return bloom was promoted by early thinning, but ethephon did not appear to promote return bloom beyond the thinning effect. In 1998, endothall caused good thinning of `York'/MM.111 with a minimum of foliage injury. Fruit diameter was increased. Thinning with endothall in 1998 greatly increased return bloom in 1999, but trees were slightly over thinned. Fruit injury caused by carbaryl was almost non-existant in 1999 in two tests having over 25 carbaryl treatments that compared different formulations and adjuvants for thinning and injury. Some very slight, non-significant injury, may have occurred with three of nine formulations tested when trees were shaded. Shading trees for 1 day in conjunction with carbaryl sprays also did not promote injury. In a previous year, shading trees promoted carbaryl injury. A tank mix of Oil with either 50WP, 80WP, XLR, or 4L formulations caused 3 to 8% of the fruit to show injury at a very low intensity. However, in an adjoining block, Sevin + Accel + Regulaid caused injury to >50% of the fruit when applied the same day as the other experiments. Further investigations on this problem are in progress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".