Interspecific Hybrids versus<i>Vitis vinifera</i>L. Bud Hardiness, Viability, and Postfreeze Pruning Implications in Cane-Pruned Vines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Abstract</h3> <h3>Background and goals</h3> Winter temperature inversions in 2020 and 2022 saw much of Nova Scotia drop below −20°C, with the coldest vineyards registering below −25°C. With sizable plantings of both interspecific hybrids and <i>Vitis vinifera</i> L., we examined both in terms of bud hardiness, viability, and the regional historical frequency of like events. A pruning study using one hybrid and one <i>V. vinifera</i> site tested whether minimal pruning should remain the recommendation in a highly damaged cane-pruned system. <h3>Methods and key findings</h3> Bud hardiness measurements using differential thermal analysis across 44 sites, 16 cultivars, and two years showed regional hybrids to be 3°C hardier, on average, than <i>V. vinifera</i>. Pre- and postfreeze bud viability data reflected this difference. Historical data indicates that the frequency of winter events equal in severity or worse than recent damaging winter events has decreased from occurring annually 100 years ago, to once every five years today. Pruning trials using a range of pruning severities showed that no treatment produced a marketable crop in the more damaged Chardonnay, while retaining extra canes was as effective as minimal pruning in Vidal blanc. Minimal pruning reduced vigor, limited pruning options, and greatly increased pruning time the following year. Carryover treatment effects in year two were nuanced and nominal in both cultivars. <h3>Conclusions and significance</h3> A reduction in winter damage risk resulting from warming is being offset by an increase in plantings of less-hardy <i>V. vinifera</i> cultivars in the region. Results from the pruning trials challenge the notion that minimal pruning after a damaging freeze event is universally the best practice in a cane-pruned system.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".