Performance of ‘Gala’ Apple Trees on 18 DwarfingRootstocks: Ten-Year Summary of the 1994 NC-140 RootstockTrial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighteen dwarfing rootstocks, including six M.9 clones and two Vineland selections, were compared at 25 North American locations for 10 years. For most response variables, there was a highly significant location x rootstock interaction, so rootstock performance differed greatly from one location to another. The M.9 clones tested in this study had similar tree survival and yield efficiency (YE), but there were large differences in tree vigor. M.9 Pajam 2 and M.9 RN29 were nearly as vigorous as M.26, whereas M.9 Flueren 56 was least vigorous. Rootstocks could be grouped into five size categories. The most dwarfing rootstocks included P.22, M.27, P. 16 and B.491, and these likely lack adequate vigor for commercial production. The second most dwarfing group of rootstocks were B.469 and Mark which produce trees of similar size. A group of slightly more vigorous rootstocks included V.3, B.9 and M.9 Flueren 56. Rootstocks similar in vigor to M.9 NAKBT337 included P.2, M.9 EMLA, M.9 Pajam 1, and O.3. The most vigorous group of rootstocks in the M.26 size class included M.9 RN29, M.9 Pajam 2, and V.1. Cumulative yield tended to be positively related to tree size, but had relatively low yields for its size. YE was significantly affected by rootstock at 14 locations. Trees on Mark had high YEs at most locations, whereas trees on B.491 had low YEs at many locations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".