Conventional vs. Photoselective Nets: Impacts on Tree Physiology, Yield, Fruit Quality and Sunburn in “Gala” Apples Grown in Mediterranean Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of five different nets—conventional black, grey, white, and photoselective red and yellow—on the performance of “Gala Redlum” apples was evaluated over a five-year period (2020–2024) and compared to an uncovered control. The cumulative production over this period, ranked from highest to lowest, was as follows: white net (182.4 t/ha), grey net (178.5 t/ha), yellow net (175.8 t/ha), black net (175.5 t/ha), red net (169.5 t/ha), and uncovered control (138.8 t/ha). Vegetative growth results were inconsistent among the studied years. The cumulative photosynthetic rate (An) was slightly higher under the white net (57.9 µmol m−2 s−1). Fv/Fm values remained closest to optimal levels under the black and grey nets. Netting effectively protected fruits from elevated temperatures, particularly under the grey net, and reduced sunburn damage, with the grey, black, and yellow nets performing best in this regard. Overall profitability was increased by netting: the black net provided the highest cumulative income per hectare over a five-year period (EUR 72,315) alongside the second-lowest sunburn loss (0.69%), while the yellow net also showed strong economic performance (€64,742) with a moderate sunburn loss (1.26%) compared to the red net. Fruit dry matter and soluble solids content (SSC) were generally higher in the uncovered control, whereas °Hue values tended to be higher under the red and yellow nets. In summary, the black and yellow nets provided more balanced microclimatic conditions that enhanced tree performance, particularly under heat stress, leading to improved yield and profitability. However, the economic feasibility of each net type should be evaluated in relation to its installation and maintenance costs.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".