Humboldtian Diagnosis of Peach Tree (Prunus persica) Nutrition Using Machine-Learning and Compositional Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional nutrient ranges are commonly used to diagnose plant nutrient status. In contrast, local diagnosis confronts unhealthy to healthy compositional entities in comparable surroundings. Robust local diagnosis requires well-documented data sets processed by machine learning and compositional methods. Our objective was to customize nutrient diagnosis of peach (Prunus persica) trees at local scale. We collected 472 observations from commercial orchards and fertilizer trials across eleven cultivars of Prunus persica and six rootstocks in the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Brazil. The random forest classification model returned an area under curve exceeding 0.80 and classification accuracy of 80% about yield cutoff of 16 Mg ha−1. Centered log ratios (clr) of foliar defective compositions have appropriate geometry to compute Euclidean distances from closest successful compositions in “enchanting islands”. Successful specimens closest to defective specimens as shown by Euclidean distance allowed reaching trustful fruit yields using site-specific corrective measures. Comparing tissue composition of low-yielding orchards to that of the closest successful neighbors in two major Brazilian peach-producing regions, regional diagnosis differed from local diagnosis, indicating that regional standards may fail to fit local conditions. Local diagnosis requires well-documented Humboldtian data sets that can be acquired through ethical collaboration between researchers and stakeholders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".