MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1757826300 · doi:10.21273/horttech.14.2.0243

Evaluation of Conservation Tillage and Cover Crop Systems for Organic Processing Tomato Production

2004· article· en· W1757826300 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHortTechnology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover cropVicia villosaAgronomySecaleVicia sativaTillageSowingTriticaleField peaBiologySativumRandomized block designWeedLolium multiflorumWeed control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field experiments were conducted in 2000 and 2001 in Meridian, Calif. to evaluate the effects of cover crop mixtures and reduced tillage on yield, soil nitrogen (N), weed growth, and soil moisture content in organic processing tomato ( Lycopersicum esculentum ) production. The trial was set up as a randomized complete-block design with eight treatments consisting of a 2 × 3 (cover crop × tillage) factorial design, a fallow control (F) and a single strip-till (ST) treatment. Cover crop mixtures were either legumes (L), common vetch ( Vicia sativa ), field pea ( Pisum sativum ) and bell bean ( Vicia faba ), or those legumes with grasses (GL), annual ryegrass/triticale ( Lolium multiflorum /x Triticosecale ) in 2000; cereal rye ( Secale cereale )/triticale in 2001. Tillage treatments included an incorporation of the cover crop at planting (IP), a delayed incorporation (DI) (17 to 19 days after planting), and no-till (NT). Due to regrowth of the annual ryegrass in 2000, tomato fruit yields in 2000 were reduced by 50% to 97% within all GL treatments. However, regrowth of the cover crop was not a problem in 2001 and yields were not different among treatments. Total percent weed cover was 1.6 to 12.5 times higher in NT than IP treatments in 2000 and 2.4 to 7.4 times higher in 2001 as weed pressure was mainly affected by tillage practices and less by cover crop type. In 2000, available soil N was 1.7 to 9.4 times higher in L than GL treatments and was significantly influenced by tillage, but there were no treatment effects in 2001 due to a 60% reduction in weed pressure and minimal or no cover crop regrowth. Soil moisture content did not differ between treatments in either year. These results demonstrate the importance of appropriate selection and termination of cover crops for their successful adoption in organic conservation tillage systems.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.223 · 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