Early Performance of ‘Fuji’ Apple Trees on SeveralSize-Controlling Rootstocks in the 2014 NC-140 RootstockTrial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2014 a coordinated multi-year apple ( Malus domestica(Borkh)) orchard experiment on 14 rootstock genotypes trained to a tall spindle orchard system was established at eight locations in Canada and the United States using ‘Aztec Fuji®’ as the scion cultivar. The rootstocks tested were: Budagovsky10 (B.10), the Cornell-Geneva rootstocks G.11, G.202, G.214, G.30, G.41, G.935, and G.969, and the Vineland rootstocks V.1, V.5, V.6, and V.7. The industry standard Malling rootstocks M.26 EMLA and M.9-T337 were included for comparison. Tree morality, trunk cross-sectional area, tree canopy size, amount of rootstock suckering, yield, and number of fruits were measured annually. All measured responses were influenced by location and rootstock and the interaction of these two factors. After five years and averaged over all locations, G.214 and B.10 were 10% and 5% smaller than M.9-T337, respectively. G.935, G.11, and G.41 were 1%, 2% and 3% larger than M.9- T337, respectively, while G.969 was 3% larger than M.26 EMLA, respectively. V.1 and G.30 were 25% and 32% larger than M.26 EMLA, respectively, while V.7, V.5, and V.6 were the largest in the trial, ranging from 49-66% larger than M.26 EMLA. Cumulative yield increased with tree vigor. Remarkably, all rootstocks out-yielded M.9-T337 and M.26 EMLA. Averaged over all locations, cumulative yield efficiency was greatest for G.935 and G.214. Overall, tree mortality and suckering were low, but were affected by planting location. These results will allow apple producers to make more informed decisions concerning rootstock selection for the tall spindle or similar orchard training systems and planting locations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".