Differences in apple fruit shape are independent of fruit size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fruit quality is crucial in breeding new apple varieties. Before tasting, consumers assess freshness and flavor based on the physical appearance of fruit. Understanding how fruit quality traits such as shape and size vary across diverse apples [ Malus domestica (Suckow) Borkh.] provides a foundation for future breeding efforts. We analyzed images of 5724 apples representing 743 different trees and 534 unique accessions from Canada's Apple Biodiversity Collection to quantify variation in fruit shape and size. To achieve this, we used a pseudo‐landmarking approach paired with traditional linear measurements including length, width, area, solidity, circularity, and aspect ratio. We also incorporated previously collected fruit weight measurements from the same trees. Using a comprehensive measure of shape, we determined that the primary source of variation in apple fruit shape, or morphometric principal component 1 (PC1) which explained 22.7% of the variation, was most highly correlated with the width to length (aspect) ratio of the fruit ( ρ = −0.964, p < 1 × 10 −15 ). In contrast, PC1 was not significantly correlated with differences in fruit size as measured using area and harvest weight. Our findings indicate that two critical aspects of morphological variation in apple—fruit shape and size—are independent, suggesting it is possible to select for a diverse range of fruit shapes while maintaining a consistent and marketable size.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".