Performance of Jonagold, McIntosh and Novaspy on three new semi-dwarf apple rootstocks in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were conducted in the provinces of Ontario (ON), New Brunswick (NB), and Nova Scotia (NS), all of which differ in growing regime, to determine the performance of Jonagold (Wilmuta strain), McIntosh and Novaspy on three new size-controlling apple [Malus × domestica (Borkh.)] rootstocks AR86-1-20, CG.008, and G.30 compared with a standard (M.26EMLA). For most response variables, rootstock performance differed in each location. Irrespective of cultivar, trees on AR86-1-20 were consistently more vigorous than those on M.26EMLA, while trees on G.30 were more vigorous in four of six experiments, and trees on CG.008 were similar to those on M.26EMLA in five of six experiments. G.30 and CG.008 were significantly more yield-efficient in four of the six experiments and show promise as replacements for rootstocks in this size category. CG.008 could be a good choice for a productive, well-anchored semi-dwarf rootstock between M.26EMLA and M.7 in vigour control, and CG.30 is likely a suitable replacement for M.7. The Horticulture Research International (HRI) rootstock AR86-1-20 is well adapted to wide soil and climate differences and may replace other rootstocks in the semi-dwarf vigour category. The results of this study provide a comprehensive look at comparable field performance of some new rootstocks for three of the five apple growing regions of Canada.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".