Orchard performance of Redhaven grafted on several interspecific hybrid <i>Prunus</i> rootstocks in comparison to Bailey seedling rootstock in Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 9-year orchard experiment was established to measure the performance of Rootpac®-R, Rootpac®-20, Rootpac®-40, and Rootpac®-70 rootstocks using Redhaven peach ( Prunus persica var. persica) as the scion, compared with Bailey, the current industry standard. Tree survival after 5 years was only 38% on Rootpac®-40, and the remaining rootstocks showed little or no tree mortality. Tree vigour and canopy height and width were influenced by rootstock genotype beginning the year of planting in 2016. Based on trunk cross-sectional area, after 9 years of production, Rootpac®-70 produced the largest trees followed by Rootpac®-40 and Rootpac®-R. Bailey and Rootpac®-20 had the lowest tree vigour. By year nine, cumulative yields were greatest on Rootpac®-70, measuring 5% higher than Bailey; cumulative yields of Rootpac®-R, Rootpac®-20, and Rootpac®-40 were 91%, 89%, and 81% that of Bailey, respectively. Cumulative yield efficiency was significantly influenced by rootstock, with Bailey being the most yield efficient and Rootpac®-40 the least. Rootpac®-40 generally produced the largest fruit. Based on tree vigour, high mortality of Rootpac®-40, and high suckering on Rootpac®-40, all Rootpac rootstocks evaluated in this study seem to impart excessive vigour unsuitable for higher density systems and offer no obvious advantage over Bailey rootstock, the current commercial standard in Southern Ontario.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".