Exploring Grapevine Phenology and High Temperatures Response Under Controlled Conditions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change has challenged growers and researchers alike to better understand how warm temperatures may impact winegrape plant development across varieties. Yet multi-variety studies present challenges. Here we review studies of controlled warming on winegrape varieties alongside a new study of the budburst and flowering phenology of 50 varieties of Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera in the lab, with a small set of plants exposed to higher temperatures (20, 26, 30, 34, and 37°C mean temperatures in growth chambers) during flowering. We found few studies have examined more than one variety, which may be due to the challenge of growing diverse varieties together. Indeed, we found high variability in flowering success across varieties in the lab (28 out of 50 varieties had no flowering), which made it impossible to study variety-specific response to temperature. Across varieties, however, we found results in line with a literature review (which we also present): higher temperatures did not have a significant effect on the rate at which vines progressed through the flowering stage, but higher temperatures did correlate with flower abortion. These results suggest a potential decrease in winegrape yields in a warmer climate due to flower abortion, but also highlight the challenges of understanding heat responses across many varieties.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it