Abstract
Abstract Surface areas of fruits and vegetables are often estimated by assuming that they resemble a shape from which surface area can be mathematically calculated. Two such models, sphere and ellipsoid, were compared to three alternative approaches for estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.) of four cultivars ('Royal Gala’, ‘Braeburn’, ‘Red Delicious’, and ‘Granny Smith'). Sphere and ellipsoid models underestimated actual surface area by 15 and 18%, respectively, with poor correlation between predicted surface area and actual surface area (estimated by measuring the area of adhesive tape required to cover the fruit surface). A method based on finite elements marginally overestimated surface area but reliably predicted surface area of small ‘Royal Gala’ and ‘Braeburn’ apples and had reasonably close correlation with actual surface area. Non‐linear regression models, developed from the very strong correlation between actual surface area and both fruit mass and volume, were the most accurate predictors of fruit surface area of the methods tested.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
The sphere model underestimated actual apple fruit surface area by 15%.
- Taxon
- Malus domestica
Malus domesticae0 - Treatment
- Spheree1
- Outcome
- surface areae1
- Direction
- underestimatede1
- Value
- 15e1
- Comparator
- actual surface areae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.)”
e1“Sphere and ellipsoid models underestimated actual surface area by 15 and 18%”
Claim · model-written summary
The ellipsoid model underestimated actual apple fruit surface area by 18%.
- Taxon
- Malus domesticaMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- ellipsoide1
- Outcome
- surface areae1
- Direction
- underestimatede1
- Value
- 18%e1
- Comparator
- actual surface areae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.)”
e1“Sphere and ellipsoid models underestimated actual surface area by 15 and 18%”
Claim · model-written summary
Sphere and ellipsoid models gave poor correlation between predicted and actual apple fruit surface area.
- Taxon
- Malus domesticaMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- correlation between predicted surface area and actual surface areae2
- Direction
- poore2
- Comparator
- actual surface areae2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.)”
e2“poor correlation between predicted surface area and actual surface area”
Claim · model-written summary
The finite element method marginally overestimated apple fruit surface area.
- Taxon
- Malus domesticaMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- finite elementse3
- Outcome
- surface areae3
- Direction
- marginally overestimatede3
- Comparator
- actual surface areae5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.)”
e3“A method based on finite elements marginally overestimated surface area”
e5“had reasonably close correlation with actual surface area”
Claim · model-written summary
The finite element method reliably predicted surface area of small Royal Gala and Braeburn apples.
- Taxon
- Malus domesticaMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- surface areae4
- Direction
- reliably predictede4
- Comparator
- actual surface areae5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.)”
e4“reliably predicted surface area of small”
e5“had reasonably close correlation with actual surface area”
Claim · model-written summary
The finite element method had reasonably close correlation with actual apple fruit surface area.
- Taxon
- Malus domesticaMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- correlatione5
- Direction
- reasonably closee5
- Comparator
- actual surface areae5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.)”
e5“had reasonably close correlation with actual surface area”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-linear regression models were the most accurate predictors of apple fruit surface area among the methods tested.
- Taxon
- Malus domesticaMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- predictors of fruit surface areae7
- Direction
- most accuratee7
- Comparator
- the methods testede7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.)”
e7“were the most accurate predictors of fruit surface area of the methods tested”
Claim · model-written summary
Actual apple fruit surface area was very strongly correlated with both fruit mass and fruit volume.
- Taxon
- Malus domesticaMalus domesticae0
- Organ / stage
- fruite6
- Outcome
- correlation between actual surface area and both fruit mass and volumee6
- Direction
- very stronge6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimating surface areas of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.)”
e6“very strong correlation between actual surface area and both fruit mass and volume”