Yield and Russeting of Greenhouse Tomato as Influenced by Leaf-to-fruit Ratio and Relative Humidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three experiments were conducted in greenhouses 1) to determine the optimal leaf-to-fruit ratio for minimizing the incidence of russeting (miniature cuticle cracks on fruit) while optimizing fruit yield of greenhouse tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and 2) to investigate the effect of day/night relative humidity (RH) regimens on the development of russeting. Leaf-to-fruit ratio treatments (0.5–2.0) were achieved by varying the number of fruit (two to six fruit) per cluster and the number of leaves (two to four leaves) between clusters. In one experiment, plants were also subjected to either high day/low night or low day/high night RH regimens (low RH, 60% to 70%; high RH, 85% to 95%). Results showed that russeting of greenhouse tomato was mostly influenced by the number of fruit per cluster (total fruit load), and very little by the number of leaves between clusters. In general, decreasing the number of fruit per cluster resulted in a progressive increase in the occurrence of russeting. Furthermore, as the number of fruit per cluster decreased, the percentage of fruit with no russeting and with little russeting decreased whereas the percentage of fruit with the more severe russeting increased (except for the summer). For beefsteak cultivars Trust and Rapsodie grown under southwestern Ontario conditions, the best pruning practices for minimizing russeting and optimizing yield was to prune clusters to three fruit in early spring and late fall, to four fruit during spring and fall, and to five fruit during the summer, with three leaves between clusters all year long. In the current study, no significant effect of day/night RH regimens on fruit russeting was observed. Of the cultivars used, Rz 74/56 was less sensitive to russeting than ‘Trust’, whereas ‘Rapsodie’ was not different from the two other cultivars. However, all three cultivars had a very high incidence of russeting (>65% of fruit affected), and none should be regarded as russeting resistant. Breeding programs and genetic investigations with the objective of developing greenhouse tomato cultivars resistant to russeting are needed.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".