MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753830857 · doi:10.21273/hortsci11918-17

Use of Plant Growth Regulators for Feathering and Flower Suppression of Apple Nursery Trees

2017· article· en· W2753830857 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jaume Lordan, Terence L. Robinson, Mario Miranda Sazo, W. Cowgill, Brent Black, Leslie Huffman, Kristy Grigg-McGuffin, Poliana Francescatto, S.J. McArtney

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
FundersNew Jersey Agricultural Experiment StationUtah Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsHorticulturePlant growthBiologyBotanyGibberellinYield (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of highly feathered trees can make high-density apple plantings more profitable through enhanced precocity and increased early yield. Currently, nurseries are asked to provide highly feathered trees with wide branch crotch angles. The use of plant growth regulators (PGRs) can play a key role when it comes to branch induction; however, dose and timing both need to be tested to enhance branching without compromising other tree quality attributes. Over the last 4 years, we have conducted studies of the use of MaxCel ® (6-benzyladenine) and Promalin ® (a mixture of 1.8% 6-benzyladenine and 1.8% GA 4+7 ) in comparison with Tiberon™ SC (cyclanilide) at several nurseries in NY, WA, DE, Ontario (Canada), and Chile. The best results were obtained with four applications of MaxCel ® or Promalin ® (400 mg·L −1 ) beginning when leader growth reached 70 cm above the soil line and reapplied at 10–14 days intervals. Promalin ® was a slightly less effective branching agent than MaxCel ® . On the other hand, Promalin ® stimulated leader growth resulting in improved final tree height, whereas MaxCel ® induced the widest branch angles. Overall, we observed good response and quality ratings with ‘Cameo’, ‘Cripps Pink’, ‘Enterprise’, ‘Fuji’, ‘Ambrosia’, ‘Crimson Crisp’, ‘Gingergold’, and ‘Granny Smith’, whereas less quality ratings were observed on ‘Ambrosia’, ‘Cortland’, ‘Goldrush’, ‘Honeycrisp’, and ‘Suncrisp’. Response with ‘Gala’ varied depending on the temperature range. Multiple sprays of Gibberellins (GA 4+7 , or GA 3 ) at 250 mg·L −1 applied to nursery trees in the late summer inhibited flower bud development and flowering in the orchard the next year. This reduces the risk of fire blight infection in newly planted trees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207