Characterizing grapevine ( <i>Vitis</i> spp.) inflorescence architecture using X-ray imaging: implications for understanding cluster density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We characterized grapevine inflorescence architecture (the rachis and all branches without berries) to describe variation among 10 wild Vitis species, assess phylogenetic signals underlying inflorescence architecture traits, and interpret this variation in the context of breeding objectives. Three-dimensional X-ray tomography scans of grapevine inflorescences were used to measure geometric traits and inflorescence topology using persistent homology, a mathematical approach that can comprehensively measure and compare shapes. We simulated potential space available for berry growth within a given inflorescence architecture by evaluating expanding spheres attached to pedicels, referred to as “berry potential.” Lastly, we performed phylogenetic analysis and mapped trait variation. We detected wide variation in inflorescence architecture features among Vitis species. Hierarchical clustering and correlation analyses revealed relationships among traits. Multivariate analyses identify traits contributing the most to variation and distinguish between species with high accuracy. Phylogenetic analyses revealed 12 morphological traits with strong phylogenetic signal. Morphometric analysis uncovered novel differences in inflorescence architecture among clades and between Vitis species. Cluster density is an important trait for assessing crop quality and forecasting yield; analyses presented here can be used to tease apart subtle, heritable features and environmental influences on this major agronomic trait.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".