MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116665455 · doi:10.71318/apom.2017.71.3.149

Budagovsky, Geneva, Pillnitz, and Malling AppleRootstocks Affect 'Honeycrisp' Performance Over the First FiveYears of the 2010 NC-140 'Honeycrisp' Apple RootstockTrial

2017· article· W7116665455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wesley R. Autio, Terence L. Robinson, Brent Black, Suzanne Blatt, D. R. F. Cochran, Winfred P. Cowgill, C.R. Hampson, Emily Hoover, Gregory Lang, Diane Miller, Ioannis S. Minas, R. Parra Quezada, M. Stasiak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American Pomological Society · 2017
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRootstockOrchardclone (Java method)Seed orchardTree (set theory)Yield (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2010, an orchard trial of apple rootstocks was established at 13 locations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico using ‘Honeycrisp’ as the scion cultivar. Rootstocks included two named clones from the Budagovsky series (B.9, B.10), seven unreleased Budagovsky clones (B.7-3-150, B.7-20-21, B.64-194, B.67-5-32, B.70-6-8, B.70-20-20, and B.71-7-22), four named Cornell-Geneva clones [Geneva® 11 (G.11), Geneva® 41 (G.41), Geneva® 202 (G.202), and Geneva® 935 (G.935)], nine unreleased Cornell-Geneva clones (CG.2034, CG. 3001, CG.4003, CG.4004, CG.4013, CG.4214, CG.4814, CG.5087, and CG.5222), one named clone from the Pillnitz series (Supp.3), two unreleased Pillnitz clones (PiAu 9-90 and PiAu 51-11), and three Malling clones as controls (M.9 NAKBT337, M.9 Pajam 2, and M.26 EMLA). All trees were trained as Tall Spindles. After 5 years, the greatest mortality was for trees on CG.4814 (15%), with trees on all other rootstocks averaging 10% or less mortality. Tree size after 5 years allowed for a preliminary partitioning of these rootstocks in to size classes from sub-dwarf to semi-standard. B.70-20-20 was semi-standard, and B.7-20-21 and B.64-194 were large semi-dwarfs. B.7-3-150, B.67-5-32, B.70-6-8, G.202N, CG.4004, and PiAu 9-90 were moderate semi-dwarfs. CG.3001, CG.4814, CG.5087, CG.5222, and PiAu 51-11 were small semi-dwarfs. G.202TC (TC = liners from tissue culture), G.935N (N = liners from stool beds), G.935TC, CG.4013, CG.4214, M.9 Pajam 2, and M.26 EMLA were large dwarfs. B.10, G.11, G.41N, G.41TC, Supp.3, and M.9 NAKBT337 were moderate dwarfs, and B.9, CG.2034, and CG.4003 were small dwarfs. B.71-7-22 was sub-dwarf. B.70-20-20, B.7-20-21, and B.64-194 were too vigorous for a high-density system, and conversely, B.71-7-22 was not vigorous enough. Among the six moderate semi-dwarf rootstocks, CG.4004 and G.202N performed best, using cumulative (2011-14) yield efficiency as the primary determinant of performance. Among the five small semi-dwarf rootstocks, CG.5087, CG.4814, and CG.3001 performed best. Of the seven rootstocks characterized as large dwarfs, G.935, CG.4214, and G.202TC resulted in the greatest cumulative yield efficiency. Of the six rootstocks in the moderate dwarf class, G.11, M.9 NAKBT337, and G.41N performed best, and CG.4003 and B.9 resulted in the greatest cumulative yield efficiency among the three small dwarf rootstocks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American Pomological SocietySame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207