Grapevine rootstocks affect growth‐related scion phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grape growers use rootstocks to provide protection against pests and pathogens and to modulate viticulture performance such as shoot growth. Our study examined two grapevine scion varieties ('Chardonnay' and 'Cabernet Sauvignon') grafted to 15 different rootstocks and determined the effect of rootstocks on eight traits important to viticulture. We assessed the vines across five years and identified both year and variety as contributing strongly to trait variation. The effect of rootstock was relatively consistent across years and varieties, explaining between 8.99% and 9.78% of the variation in growth-related traits including yield, pruning weight, berry weight and Ravaz index (yield to pruning weight ratio). Increases in yield due to rootstock were generally the result of increases in berry weight, likely due to increased water uptake by vines grafted to a particular rootstock. We demonstrated a greater than 50% increase in yield, pruning weight, or Ravaz index by choosing the optimal rootstock, indicating that rootstock choice is crucial for grape growers looking to improve vine performance.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".