Performance of 17 Peach and Nectarine Cultivars in aSouthern-Ontario, Non-Traditional Growing Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The horticultural performance of 17 peach ( Prunus persica(L.) Batsch) and nectarine cultivars ( Prunus persicavar. nucipersica) was evaluated for seven years in Simcoe, Ontario, a non-traditional region for growing peaches. The trees were established at a spacing of 2.5 m x 4.5 m in 2004 and trained as a central leader supported on a post and wire trellis. Tree vigor, mortality, productivity, bloom, maturity date, yield and fruit size were monitored annually. After seven growing seasons, no significant difference in tree mortality, tree width or tree height was observed among cultivars. Despite winter minimum temperatures falling below -28°C in 2004 and 2005, which killed flower buds in two years out of seven, no substantive injury to the tree or scaffold branches was sustained. At the end of the study, ‘AC Harrow Dawn’ was the most vigorous while ‘Redhaven’ and ‘Virgil’ were the least vigorous. ‘Redhaven’, HW272, and V84061 were the most productive cultivars. The bloom dates for all cultivars ranged from 19 Apr to 13 May, a period in the region which is still at risk of spring frosts. Fruit from ‘Harrow Beauty’, V85384, HW273, and ‘Vivid’ trees had the largest overall fruit size. On average, harvest dates ranged over a six week period (23 Jul – 4 Sep). In general, the nectarine cultivars ‘Harflame’ and ‘Harblaze’ did poorly primarily because of their greater predisposition to foliar and fruit damage from Japanese beetles ( Popillia japonicaNewman). We conclude from this study that the establishment of peach orchards in the Norfolk region of southern Ontario is feasible. Vigorous, healthy tree growth was evident in most cultivars, however care is warranted to select cultivars that are productive, and that have the adequate fruit size for the desired market.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".