Terroir and rootstock effects on leaf shape in California Central Valley vineyards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Embedded in a single leaf shape are the latent signatures of genetic, developmental, and environmental effects. In viticulture, choice of location and rootstock are important decisions that affect the performance and production of the shoot. We hypothesize that these effects influence plant morphology, as reflected in leaf shape. We sample 1879 leaves arising from scion and rootstock combinations from commercial vineyards in the Central Valley of California. Our design tests 20 pairwise contrasts between Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay scions from San Joaquin, Merced, and Madera counties from vines grafted to Teleki 5C, 1103 Paulsen, and Freedom rootstocks. Using geometric morphometric approaches, we visualize a morphospace in which, in addition to clear separation of Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay scion leaf shapes, an orthogonal source of shape variation affects both varieties. Comparing the Procrustes distances to within and between group means, the additional source of variance is found to arise from location and rootstock effects. We describe and visualize a specific shape feature, the angle of the proximal lobe to the midvein that defines the closure of the petiolar sinus, that is attributable to location and rootstock effects and orthogonal to and separate from genetic, developmental, or allometric effects attributable to leaf size. Societal Impact Statement (EN) The innumerable effects of terroir—including climate, soil, microbial environment, biotic interactions, and cultivation practice—collectively alter plant performance and production. A more direct agricultural intervention is grafting, in which genetically distinct shoot and root genotypes are surgically combined to create a chimera that alter shoot performance at a distance. Selection of location and rootstock are intentional decisions in viticulture to positively alter production outcomes. Here, we show that terroir and rootstock alter the shapes of grapevine leaves in commercial vineyards throughout the California Central Valley, documenting the profound effects of these agricultural interventions that alter plant morphology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".