Root Architecture and Development of American Grape Rootstocks Grafted with Foxy Grapes (Vitis labrusca L.) Cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the important factors affecting rootstock performance in grafted grapevine production is root structure and its ability for different soil. In the present study, foxy grape varieties registered for the first time in the Black Sea Region in Turkey by the selection, and several American grape rootstocks were bench grafted. In this study; it is aimed to examine the root architecture of foxy grape grafted saplings for their root architecture and the development of rootstocks. In the experiment ‘Rizessi’, ‘Çeliksu’, ‘Ülkemiz’ and ‘Rizellim’ foxy grape cultivars grafted on 140Ru, SO4 and 110R rootstocks. WinRhizo root analysis program (Regent Instrument Inc. Canada, ver.2013) was used to determine rootstocks' architecture and development of grafted vine saplings. Roots prepared for scanning were placed on the scanning part of the device and transferred to the computer context. Root length and mean root diameter are two of the essential features that reveal the root architecture of rootstocks. In the study, root length (cm), root surface area (cm2), root diameter (mm), root volume (cm3), root tip number (piece), root branching number (piece), and root intersection number (piece) were determined. Total root length was determined between 330.05 - 595.40 cm ('Rizellim'/SO4 and 'Çeliksu'/140Ru) and mean root diameter of 2.04 - 3.13 mm ('Çeliksu'/140Ru and 'Rizessi'/110R). Negative relationships were found between root length and mean root diameter. Among the rootstocks, the highest root surface area was 399.67 cm2, root volume was 29.32 m3, the number of root tips was 1605.75, the number of root forks was 5421.89, and the number of root crossing was 671.61 on 110R rootstock. In all combinations obtained as a result of the study, it was determined that the rootstocks showed good root development and were in harmony with the new foxy grape cultivars.
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".