Effects of duration of coverage with spunbonded polyester rowcovers on growth and yield of bell pepper (<i>Capsicum annuum</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transparent rowcovers installed at transplanting and removed as growing conditions improve are commonly employed to promote development of warm-season vegetable crops. In regions with a brief and cool growing season, short-stature warm-season crops such as peppers could potentially benefit from being kept under the rowcovers for extended periods after transplanting. This study examined the influence of duration of coverage with spunbonded polyester rowcovers on vegetative growth, fruit yields and degree of fruit maturity of bell peppers over the 1999, 2000 and 2001 cropping seasons in Saskatchewan, Canada. Eight-week-old transplants of several cultivars of pepper were covered for 6 wk or 10 wk after transplanting or for the duration of the growing season. All growth and yield responses to the duration of coverage were consistent across the cultivars tested. In 1999, extending the period of coverage reduced aboveground vegetative growth of the crop, otherwise vegetative growth was not influenced by the duration of coverage. During the relatively cool 2000 cropping season, the duration of coverage had no effect on fruit yields or the proportion of the fruit that matured to red prior to frost. By contrast, in the warmer 1999 and 2001 cropping seasons, fruit yields declined as the duration of coverage increased. Excessively high temperatures interfere with fruit set in peppers. These results suggest that the risk of exposing the crop to excessively high temperatures may be increased by extending the period of coverage into the warmer periods of the growing season. Extending the period of coverage beyond the standard 6 wk also required additional labor and occasionally exacerbated problems with weeds and insect pests. Key words: Rowcovers, microclimate, ripening, pepper, Capsicum annuum
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".