Early Performance of 'Cortland,' 'Macoun,''Mclntosh,' and 'Pioneer Mac' Apple Trees on Various Rootstocks inMaine, Massachusetts, and Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trials were established in 1995 at three sites in the northeast region of North America, which included four apple ( MalusX domesticaBorkh.) cultivars ('Cortland,' 'Macoun,' 'Rogers Red Mclntosh,' and 'Pioneer Mac') in all combinations on 10 rootstocks (B.146, B.469, B.491, M.9, M.9 NAKBT337, Mark, P.2, P.16, V.1, and V.3). Tree survival was high after five growing seasons except for trees on B.146 and B.491 in Maine and Massachusetts. Poor tree quality at planting probably explains most of the tree loss on these stocks. Tree size was not affected by cultivar or location, but was dramatically affected by rootstock. The largest trees were on Mark followed by V.1. The smallest trees were on B.469, B.491, and B.146. The M.9 clones, P.2, and V.3 were intermediate in size and similar in trunk cross-sectional area. The difference between the largest and the smallest trees was nearly seven-fold in Massachusetts and only three-fold in Maine and Nova Scotia. Cumulative yield and yield efficiency were greater in Massachusetts than at the other two sites. Trees on Mark had the greatest yield followed by V.1, M.9, V.3, M.9 NAKBT337, and P.2. Trees on B.469, B.491, B.146, and P.16 were the least productive. Trees on P.16 had the highest yield efficiency followed by trees on V.3, P.2, B.491, M.9, and M.9 NAKBT337. The least efficient trees were on B.469, Mark, V.1, and B.146. Fruit size was larger in Massachusetts than in Maine or Nova Scotia. Rootstock effects on fruit size of 'Cortland,' 'Mclntosh,' and 'Pioneer Mac' were similar, with the largest fruit from trees on V.1, M.9, and V.3 and the smallest from trees on B.146. Rootstock did not affect fruit size of 'Macoun.' Several interactions between cultivar, rootstock, and location for the measured parameters were significant, but the level of variation explained by these interactions was small, compared to that explained by the main factors, and the practical importance of these interactions was minimal.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".