Comparison of conservation with conventional tillage for potato production in Atlantic Canada: crop productivity, soil physical properties and weed control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation tillage (CT) for potato crop land has been increasing in Atlantic Canada, but producers are concerned that fields managed in this way may be wet, slow to warm in spring, have increased debris at harvest, exhibit higher soil compaction and result in reduced yield. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of four tillage practices on potato yield, soil properties and weed growth over a 3-yr period. The four tillage practices were: (1 ) conventional autumn mouldboard plowing followed by spring secondary tillage; (2) spring mouldboard plowing followed by secondary tillage; (3) autumn chisel plowing followed by spring secondary tillage; and (4) spring CT. Tillage practices significantly affected soil water content (at both the 0- to 15-cm and 15- to 30-cm soil depths) with CT generally showing a greater soil water content prior to spring tillage in comparison to the other treatments. Soil temperature (at the 2- to 5-cm soil depth) prior to spring tillage was not influenced by tillage differences. Conservation tillage increased soil compaction at the 10- to 30-cm soil depth, but not to a level considered detrimental to root growth. Tillage treatments had no effect on amount of soil clods and plant debris passing over the harvester. Potato yield (range of 43 to 51 Mg ha -1 ) and quality were not adversely influenced by tillage practices. There were few treatment effects on individual weed species or groupings of annual, perennial and total weeds. Overall, CT can be a viable management alternative to conventional tillage because this practice does not negatively affect field management, potato yield, or soil quality. Key words: Conservation tillage, residue management, potato, soil temperature, soil moisture, tillage methods
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".