Grapevine leaf size influences canopy temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grapevine leaves have diverse shapes and sizes which are influenced by many factors including genetics, vine phytosanitary status, environment, leaf and vine age, and node position on the shoot. To determine the relationship between grapevine leaf shape or size and leaf canopy temperature, we examined five seedling populations grown in a vineyard in California, USA. The populations had one parent with compound leaves of the Vitis piasezkii type and a different second parent with non-compound leaves. In previous work, we had measured the shape and size of the leaves collected from these populations using 21 homologous landmarks. Here, we paired these morphological data with canopy temperature measurements made using a handheld infrared thermometer. After recording time of sampling and canopy temperature, we used a linear model between time of sampling and canopy temperature to estimate temperature residuals. Based on these residuals, we determined if the canopy temperature of each vine was cooler or warmer than expected, based on the time of sampling. We established a relationship between leaf size and canopy temperature: vines with larger leaves were cooler than expected. By contrast, leaf shape was not strongly correlated with variation in canopy temperature. Ultimately, these findings indicate that vines with larger leaves may contribute to the reduction of overall canopy temperature; however, further work is needed to determine whether this is due to variation in leaf size, differences in the openness of the canopy or other related traits.
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".