How plant allometry influences bud phenology and fruit yield in two Vaccinium species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Understanding how plant allometry, plant architecture and phenology contribute to fruit production can identify those plant traits that maximize fruit yield. In this study, we compared these variables and fruit yield for two shrub species, Vaccinium angustifolium and Vaccinium myrtilloides, to test the hypothesis that phenology is linked to the plants' allometric traits, which are predictors of fruit production. METHODS: We measured leaf and flower phenology and the above-ground biomass of both Vaccinium species in a commercial wild lowbush blueberry field (Quebec, Canada) over a 2-year crop cycle; 1 year of pruning followed by 1 year of harvest. Leaf and flower phenology were measured, and the allometric traits of shoots and buds were monitored over the crop cycle. We hand-collected the fruits of each plant to determine fruit attributes and biomass. KEY RESULTS: During the harvesting year, the leafing and flowering of V. angustifolium occurred earlier than that of V. myrtilloides. This difference was related to the allometric characteristics of the buds due to differences in carbon partitioning by the plants during the pruning year. Through structural equation modelling, we identified that the earlier leafing in V. angustifolium was related to a lower leaf bud number, while earlier flowering was linked to a lower number of flowers per bud. Despite differences in reproductive allometric traits, vegetative biomass still determined reproductive biomass in a log-log scale model. CONCLUSIONS: Growing buds are competing sinks for non-structural carbohydrates. Their differences in both number and characteristics (e.g. number of flowers per bud) influence levels of fruit production and explain some of the phenological differences observed between the two Vaccinium species. For similar above-ground biomass, both Vaccinium species had similar reproductive outputs in terms of fruit biomass, despite differences in reproductive traits such as fruit size and number.
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".