Responses of a long greenhouse tomato crop to summer CO<sub>2</sub> enrichment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While CO 2 enrichment generally benefits tomato fruit production in winter its effects on summer tomato production (under high air temperature and strong ventilation) are still not clear, especially when the crop has been subjected to long-term CO 2 enrichment in winter. Therefore, a study was initiated in 2005 to determine the feasibility of summer CO 2 enrichment in southwestern Ontario, a major greenhouse vegetable production area in North America with very hot summers. The long tomato crop (cv. Rapsodie) was planted into rockwool slabs in six greenhouse compartments in January. From January to the middle of June, the tomato plants in all six greenhouse compartments were subjected to the same standard CO 2 enrichment practice. From the end of June to August, three CO 2 treatments (two compartments for each treatment) were applied: Control (ambient/no enrichment), Enrich1 (800 µL L -1 when ventilation was less than 10% and 400 µL L -1 when less than 50%) and Enrich2 (1200 µL L -1 when ventilation was less than 10% and 500 µL L -1 when less than 50%). In all treatments, CO 2 enrichment ceased when ventilation requirement was more than 50%. Leaf photosynthesis, as indicated by the CO 2 response curve, partially acclimated to the CO 2 enrichment. Marketable fruit yield was reduced by the summer CO 2 enrichment. Leaf deformation [short, thick, curled and somewhat crisp, dark grey-green leaves, so-called short leaf syndrome (SLS)] was observed in the greenhouse compartments with summer CO 2 enrichment. SLS developed under high light intensity and high CO 2 concentration might have limited response of the tomato crop to summer CO 2 enrichment. Further investigation on the cause and mechanism of SLS is needed to improve the response of greenhouse tomatoes to summer CO 2 enrichment. Key words: Photosynthesis, Lycopersicon esculentum, high temperature stress, acclimation
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".