Viticultural Performance of Hybrids and Vitis vinifera Varieties Established in Annapolis Valley (Nova Scotia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Cold-hardy interspecific hybrid grapes (CIHG) are well adapted to the Annapolis Valley edaphoclimatic conditions. The main characteristics of CIHG are the high bud hardiness tolerance to winter frost, the short growing cycle, and the good tolerance to cryptogamic diseases. Based on local experience, the Vitis vinifera varieties should be grown in the warmest areas of the Annapolis Valley (Nova Scotia, Canada). Despite this, there is little scientific evidence that shows the viticultural behavior of these varieties under the edaphoclimatic conditions of this valley. (2) Methods: Thus, the aim of this research was to evaluate the viticultural behavior of two CIHG (L’Acadie and New York Muscat) and three V. vinifera varieties (Chardonnay, Riesling, and Pinot Noir) growing in the Annapolis Valley over three consecutive seasons. (3) Results: The coldest season (2019) produced a delay in grapevine phenology of at least 18 days for budburst compared to the warm seasons (2017 and 2018). In addition, in the coldest season from budburst to bloom the duration decreased compared to the rest of the seasons. The main phenological stages started earlier in L’Acadie than in the V. vinifera varieties. L’Acadie presented lower N petiole content than the V. vinifera varieties, which conditioned shoot growth in the studied seasons. CIHG presented low B petiole levels and produced musts with low malic acid content, while V. vinifera varieties produced musts with high N content. L’Acadie was the only variety that could bud out, and differentially produced fruit after the spring frost of −2 to −3 °C for 2 h in 2018 in this trial. (4) Conclusions: L’Acadie, and to a lesser extent, Riesling, hold an interesting adaptation to the edaphoclimatic conditions of the Annapolis Valley.
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 | 0.001 | 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".