Interactions of Market Horticultural Productivity on Climate and Weather Variations in the Northern Senatorial District of Cross River State, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various definitions have severally been adduced to poverty as the major cause of most environmental problems ranging from resources depletion, species extinction, deforestation, erosion etc. Majorly man’s activities on the biosphere has tended to impact negatively on the environment, this activities are primarily carried out to sustain man’s existence on the planet earth. These activities include faulty farming practices, indiscriminate use of agrochemicals including fertilizers for agricultural purposes, urbanization and industrial development. This research took a cursory look at the activities of rural farmers cultivating vegetables and other market gardening activities in order to sustain themselves during dry season as safety net for shortfalls in family income and food. These activities are done along watershed and this involves clearing, tilling, use of inorganic manure, herbicides amongst others. Researches including this have shown that these farming practices are detrimental to the ecosystem and have contributed greatly to affecting the ecological balance of the supportive ecosystem. This research therefore set out to assess how these dry seasons agriculture carried out within the study areas has affected the environment vis a vis climate and weather variation. The research adopted field experiment where data were collected twice per year for a period of five years from the farm site and the local meteorological station at Ogoja. The authors used bar graphs to present data from the field. Using rainfall, temperature and soil moisture content data for five years, the authors gathered that this farming activities has impacted negatively on the environment affecting both weather and climate variation. It was also observed by the researchers that though the data for five years was very minimal for any positive generalization, but findings shows that there were some noticeable changes attributed to these activities. It was recommended that hand dug well or boreholes should be used as sources of water supply to avoid destruction of the watershed. It was also suggested that farm yard manure should be used instead of the inorganic manure that has become detrimental of late to both the environment and human health.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".