Cold Hardiness of New Apple Cultivars of CommercialImportance in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six new apple cultivars were evaluated for cold hardiness in early December and February for two consecutive winters, relative to traditional cultivars ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Mutsu’ (winter tender) and ‘McIntosh’ (hardy). Pieces of dormant current season’s shoots were frozen in a series of test temperatures from -20°C to -40°C in a programmable freezer. Ratings of tissue browning in the xylem were used to assess injury after thawing. The temperature of incipient damage (TID), the warmest temperature at which a cultivar began to show injury, was obtained from survival curves by non-linear regression. TID varied significantly among cultivars, but generally not with the time of the dormant period. Overall, the cultivars could be placed in groups based on relative winter hardiness as follows: ‘Aurora Golden Gala’ (very tender) < ‘Mutsu’, ‘Jonagold’, (tender) < ‘Ambrosia’, ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Gala’ (intermediate) < ‘Northern Spy’, ‘McIntosh’ (hardy), and ‘Honeycrisp’ (very hardy). These data indicate nearly a 10°C range in winter hardiness amongst the nine cultivars studied, depending on the sampling date. The cultivars, ‘Ambrosia’ and ‘Aurora Golden Gala’ appear to be particular winter tender; ‘Aurora Golden Gala’ appears more tender than ‘Mutsu’ and ‘Jonagold’ while ‘Ambrosia’ is similar to ‘Golden Delicious’– all of which are considered relatively tender in Ontario and British Columbia. ‘Honeycrisp’ demonstrated the greatest winter hardiness. Based on these finding, it would be prudent to consult long-term climate normals and to take into account the frequency of extreme weather events for potential susceptibility to winter injury particularly prior to establishing the new tender cultivars ‘Aurora Golden Gala’, ‘Ambrosia’, and ‘Gala’.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".