163 The Influence of Apogee and Its Combination with Ethephon, Chemical Thinners, Cations, and/or Adjuvants for Apple Tree Growth Control and Return Bloom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prohexadione calcium applied as a series of three applications starting soon after petal fall to `Fuji'/M.9 apple trees reduced the number of pruning cuts, pruning time, pruning weight per tree, current season's shoot length, individual shoot weights, and increased number of nodes on the lower 40 cm of shoots. Fruit diameter, soluble solids, starch, or individual fruit weights were not affected by Apogee sprays. Fruit color and firmness were slightly increased in only one experiment. Growth suppression appeared to be greater on trees cropping more heavily. When trees were more heavily thinned, less shoot growth control was achieved. Apogee applied at 250 mg/L in three applications caused a significant increase in fruit set when compared to the control. Alone Vydate, Carbaryl+Oil, or Carbary+Accel+Oil caused fruit thinning, but neither ethephon nor shading 3 days caused significant thinning. Apogee did not influence results of chemical thinners when applied between the first and second Apogee applications. The 10% and the 27.5% Apogee formulations gave similar shoot growth inhibition when applied with Regulaid or Oil+Silwet L-77. When using hard water (well water), the 27.5% Apogee formulation was not as effective as the 10% formulation. The 10% Apogee formulation has more NH 4 SO 4 than the 27.5% formulation w/w; NH 4 SO 4 is used to prevent inactivation of Apogee by calcium and other cations when hard water is used for spraying. The addition of CaCl (frequently used to reduce bitter pit and corkspot disorders) to the 27.5% Apogee formulation caused poorer growth control than with hard water alone. When Apogee was used at 125 mg/L, the addition of NH 4 SO 4 restored the effectiveness of the hard water+CaCl mixture. Alone the additives NH 4 SO 4 , Ca Cl, Regulaid, and/or Oil plus L-77, had no effect on tree growth. Apogee plus L-77+Oil provided additional growth suppression when compared to Apogee+Regulaid. In 1998, three applications of Apogee (63 mg/L) or ethephon (135 mg/L) did not affected shoot growth of `Fuji'/M.9 trees at these low rates. Combinations of Apogee and ethephon gave good control of tree growth. Flowering and fruit set were not promoted by any of these applications.
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".