165 Ethephon, Foliar Nutrient, and Gibberellin Sprays on Subsequent Season(s) Return Bloom and Fruit Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heavily cropping `York'/M.27 trees sprayed with seven multiple low doses of ethephon (135 mg/L each) did not cause greater return bloom in 1999 unless foliar fertilizers (either 18–18–18 or Ca N0 3 ) were added to the ethephon sprays. Foliar fertilizer sprays alone did not promote return bloom. `York'/M.7 trees selected for very little bloom in 1997 (“off year” of the biennial bearing cycle) and sprayed with 160 mg/L GA 3 or 320 mg/L GA 3 had significantly less return bloom in the 1998 (“on year”) (61% and 46% spurs flowering, respectively, compared to control trees that had 99% of spurs flowering). Trees sprayed in 1997 (“off year”) with GA 3 return bloom and cropped in 1999; but trees in the “off year” in 1997 that were not sprayed with GA 3 , did not crop in 1999. Sprays of GA 3 provided some control of alternate bearing of `York'/M.7 trees when applied in the “off year” of the biennial bearing cycle. Leaves taken from `Braeburn'/M.27 trees in 70 °F rooms evolved ethylene through out the 12 days of the test. A moderate ethylene peak occurred on about days 5 and 6. Leaves from trees in the 40 °F room did not evolve detectable ethylene levels until trees were put in another 70 °F room on day 6. Ethylene levels were about the same from day 6 through day 12 for all treated trees at 70 °F. Nontreated control trees in rooms at 40 or 70 °F did not produce detectable ethylene levels during the experiment (except for a very small amount detected only on day 2 from leaves seal for 24 h at 70 °F.
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".