Growth, photosynthesis and productivity of greenhouse tomato cultivated in open or closed rockwool systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two full spring season tomato crops (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. “Trust”) were grown in an open rockwool system with standard rockwool feeding formulae (O-R; conventional method), and in closed rockwool systems with standard rockwool (C-R) or Nutrient Film Technique (C-NFT) feeding formulae (modified in 1997) in 1996 and 1997 to examine the feasibility of a fully closed rockwool production system with appropriate feeding formulae. The closed rockwool system with optimized feeding formulae achieved high marketable yield, similar to that of the open rockwool system. There were no differences in early plant growth, plant biomass or biomass partitioning, and in total fruit yield, size and grades except for the closed rockwool system with the standard rockwool feeding formulae (C-R), which had lower yield than C-NFT in the last month of harvest in 1996. The photosynthesis of old foliage was higher and the root systems at the end of the experiments were rated healthier in plants grown in the closed (C-R and C-NFT) systems than in plants grown in the open (O-R) system. Over 30% of water and fertilizer was saved with the closed systems in comparison to the conventional open system. These results demonstrated that closed rockwool systems with optimized nutrient feedings are economically and environmentally sound alternative methods for greenhouse tomato production in Ontario. Key words: Lycopersicon esculentum, tomato, yield, recycling, rockwool, greenhouse
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".