Genotypic Variation in Apple Rootstock Low Temperature Tolerance During Spring and Fall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To identify genotypes of apple ( Malus × domestica ) rootstock with vulnerability to low temperature, we measured the low temperature tolerance of xylem, phloem and cambium in 2-year-old shoot pieces from cultivars Budagovsky 9 (B.9), M.7 EMLA (M.7), M.9 EMLA (M.9), Geneva ® 41 (G.41), Geneva 30 (G.30), Geneva 214 (G.214), Geneva 814 (G.814), and Geneva 935 (G.935), as well as six advanced selections in the Geneva (G.) series and three in the Vineland (V.) series. From Oct. 2013 to Apr. 2014, injury was measured as a 0–10 rating based on percentage of discolored cross-sectional xylem and phloem, and cambial length and circumference with brown discoloration, with 0 indicating no browning and 10 indicating browning in the entire tissue. From Oct. 2014 to Apr. 2015, injury was measured as xylem, phloem and cambium browning using a similar rating scale that accounted for both the percentage of browned tissues and the intensity of browning. Following exposure to −35 to −40 °C, many genotypes, including ‘M.7’, ‘M.9’, ‘G.935’, G.4011, G.4292, G.5087, and V.5, had only partial xylem injury in the fall, whereas others, ‘M.7’, ‘G.41’, ‘G.214’, and G.4011, had more extensive xylem browning at −30 °C and colder. ‘G.30’ had moderate to severe xylem browning at −15 to −19 °C. In late October of both years, G.4013 exhibited severe phloem browning at relatively high temperatures, but accrued additional hardiness by Nov. 2014, whereas genotypes ‘B.9’, ‘M.9’, ‘G.30’, and ‘G.41’ developed considerable phloem hardiness by late October with no additional increase in hardiness in November. Geneva and Vineland genotypes exhibited a low degree of susceptibility to injury at −35 to −40 °C in Jan. 2014 and Mar. 2015. Shoot hardiness in Apr. 2014 and 2015 was highly variable between the 2 years, with severe browning of xylem and cambium at −40 °C in every genotype sampled in Apr. 2014, but not in Apr. 2015. ‘M.9’ and G.3902 appeared to be the least vulnerable to injury in April, whereas ‘G.30’, ‘G.41’, ‘G.814’, G.4292, and G.5257 seem more likely to suffer injury in spring. ‘G.30’ had tender xylem in both fall and spring, G.4013 had the least hardy cambium and phloem in fall, and G.5257 the least hardy cambium in the spring. These genotypes are vulnerable to damaging temperatures during fall acclimation and spring deacclimation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".