162 The Influence of Root Restriction on Flowering, Fruiting, Tree Growth, Yields, and Fruit Quality of Apple Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
`Fuji'/MM.111, `Pink Lady'/M.7A, and `Summerfield'/M.7A apple trees were planted in several types of individual root restrictive bags in the field in 1995. Bags were made of Knit and Woven fabrics, Galvanize hardware cloth (6.4 cm) with various holes sizes and of different bag volumes. The bags confined the development of large roots to within the bag. Roots that penetrated the bag resulted in root branching and large root inhibition. As the roots enlarged, roots penetrating the bags were restricted in diameter by the fabric hole size. Roots enlarged to some degree on both sides of the fabric holes but were not killed by girdling within the first few years. Root restriction bags decreased trunk caliper, shoot growth, pruning weights, number of cuts per tree, increased flowering, fruit numbers, and weight per tree. Fruit firmness, soluble solids and color was increased and starch was lower than the nonbagged controls. In cage and tank trials pine and/or meadow voles easily penetrated all of the fabric and polypropylene bags within 24 h, except for the galvanized hardware cloth (6.4 cm). Susceptibility of each material to vole damage was tested by placement of an apple inside a small bag of each. Root restriction bags seemed to be a viable alternative to dwarfing rootstocks for control of tree size, early flowering, and early fruiting.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".