Growing media, greenhouse tomato yield and <i>Pythium</i> root rot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased environmental pressure is forcing the horticultural industry to look for new growing media in replacement of rockwool and high-quality peat substrates. The objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the effect of different substrates on greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) yield and root rot caused by Pythium, and (2) thethreshold values of some substrate physico-chemical properties for tomato yield and Pythium root rot. Two experiments (fall, spring) were conducted using five substrates. In the fall experiment, yield was related to water availability, as long as aeration was sufficient. In the spring experiment, yield depended on air storage and gas concentrations (O2, CO2) in the substrate because of their low aeration levels. The effect of substrate types and their physico-chemical properties on Pythium root rot varied according to the cultural conditions. Under fall cropping conditions, substrates showing wet and anaerobic conditions favoured Pythium root rot. In these experiments, adequate aeration properties for tomato plant productivity were obtained with a maximum of 30% low-quality peat added to a mixture of sawdust and compost. Key words: Growing media, irrigation strategies, physico-chemical properties, Pythium root rot, Lycopersicum esculentum
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".