Effects of Pinching Treatment on Harvest Term and Plant Growth in Processing Tomato
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of pinching treatments carried out at the 3- and 6-true-leaf stages on harvest term and plant growth in processing tomato ‘Shuho’ (Solanum lycopersicum L.) were examined. Weekly yields in the 3- and 6-true-leaf pinching treatments were increased compared with those in the untreated control at 1 and 2 wk after the start of harvest, respectively. There were no differences among all treatments in yield, fruit weight, fruit number, or marketable fruit ratio. However, the fruit set ratio in the 3-true-leaf pinching treatment was increased more than those in the other treatments. The flowering periods in the pinching treatment groups were shorter than those of the control. The number of flowers per lateral shoot in the pinching treatment groups was greater than that in the control. DW in the lateral shoots in the 3-true-leaf pinching treatment was significantly greater than that in other treatment groups. The distribution of nitrogen and calcium in the lateral shoots in the 3-true-leaf pinching treatment was increased compared with those in other treatment groups. This result suggests that shortening of the harvest term and increasing initial fruit yield in the 3-true-leaf pinching treatment would be more efficient practices in processing tomato cultivation.
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) | 0.002 | 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".