Jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) Flowering and Fruiting in the Southwestern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifty-six jujube cultivars were observed for their flowering habits and fruiting characteristics at Alcalde, New Mexico. Jujube cultivars were classified as morning blooming type or afternoon blooming type. Among the 56 cultivars observed, 24 belonged to the morning type and 32 belonged to the afternoon type. Eighteen out of the 56 cultivars had their blooming type reported for the first time. The sepal splitting for morning type occurred from sunrise to 1000 hr , whereas it occurred between 1300 and 1600 hr for the afternoon type. Even though their opening time differed, pollen release happened during daytime for both—morning type released pollen in the afternoon and afternoon type released pollen in the late afternoon and the next morning. Rainy and cloudy weather delayed blooming for several hours. Each flower experienced the following stages during blooming: sepal splitting, sepal flat, petal standing, petal and anther separation, petal flat and anther standing, anther flat, and stigma browning; the time and duration of each stage varied with cultivar and blooming type. Flower size varied by cultivar and helps with cultivar identification. Cultivars Li, Li-2, Redland, Qiyuexian, Xiangzao, Teapot, and Daguazao were self-pollinating/self-fruitful in New Mexico. For open pollination, fruit set varied greatly by cultivar. ‘Abbeville’ had the best fruit set each year. Most cultivars had better fruit set from open pollination than self-pollination; however, self-fruitful cultivars Li, Li-2, and Redland had better fruit set with self-pollination than open pollination in some years. Open pollination increased fruit size for all cultivars. ‘Zhongning’, ‘Abbeville’, ‘Jinsi-2’, and ‘Globe’ had high seed percentage from open-pollinated fruit, whereas ‘Lang’, ‘Don Polenski’, ‘Junzao’, and ‘Xingguang’ did not produce fully developed seed in any years but some dark brown empty seedcoat sacs. Seed development was also affected by weather and pollination conditions. Fruit blooming type, pollen release, self-pollination, self-fruitfulness, self-fertility, and seed development are all critical information for jujube breeders, researchers, extension personnel, and growers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".