Early performance of several <i>Prunus</i> interspecific hybrid rootstocks for Redhaven peach in southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multi-year orchard experiment was established to measure the performance of Rootpac®-R, Rootpac®-20, Rootpac®-40, and Rootpac®-70 rootstocks using ‘Redhaven’ peach (Prunus persica var. persica) as the scion, compared with the ‘Bailey’ peach seedling rootstock, the current industry standard. Tree survival after five years was 79% on Rootpac-40, whereas the remaining rootstocks showed no tree mortality. Tree vigour and canopy height and width were influenced by rootstock genotype beginning the year of planting in 2016. For the first five years of production, Rootpac-70 consistently produced the largest trees based on truck cross-sectional area (TCSA) and by year five, all rootstocks produced trees with similar TCSAs, except for Rootpac-70, which was 38% larger than Bailey. By year five, cumulative yields were greatest on Rootpac-70, which were 10% higher than Bailey; cumulative yields of Rootpac-R, Rootpac-20, and Rootpac-30 were 98%, 89%, and 84% that of Bailey, respectively. Cumulative yield efficiency was significantly influenced by rootstock although the magnitude of the differences was small and likely of insignificant commercial importance. Rootpac-40 consistently produced the largest fruit. These results are only reflective of the orchard establishment years and additional data are required before peach producers can make fully informed decisions concerning the rootstocks evaluated in this study for their orchard systems. However, at this juncture, all the Rootpac rootstocks evaluated in this study are likely to impart excessive vigour to be used in a higher density system and offer little advantage over Bailey.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".