MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108778697 · doi:10.4141/cjps07007

Potential to double-crop plastic mulch

2008· article· en· W2108778697 on OpenAlex
D. Waterer, William Hrycan, Theresa Simms

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulchPlastic mulchAgronomyPepperEnvironmental scienceWeedCropGrowing seasonCroppingCanopyBiologyHorticultureAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Double-cropping of plastic (polyethylene) mulches has the potential to increase the cost-effectiveness while reducing the environmental impact of this technology for enhancing growth of vegetable crops. In regions with a short growing season, double-cropping of soil mulches hinges on being able to leave the plastic in the field over winter. This extended exposure to the elements may alter the physical and optical characteristics of the mulch, thereby influencing crop productivity in the second year of use. This study evaluated the physical characteristics and efficacy of black, clear and infrared transmitting (IRT) mulches over two cropping seasons in Saskatchewan. The crops planted were pepper (Capsicum annuum) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus) in the first year and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) in the second year. Early-season soil temperatures appeared highest under the clear mulch in the first year, but once the crop canopy was established there was little difference in soil temperature among plots having different mulches. Higher yields of both cucumber and pepper were produced in the first year by clear mulch than by black mulch or without mulch. All mulches were still physically sound at the end of the first growing season, but light transmission through the clear and IRT mulches was reduced relative to new mulch. Much of this change was due to soil and other debris on the surface of the mulches. There was little further change in the physical condition or light transmission characteristics of the mulches through the second year of use. Weed growth under clear mulch in its second year appeared to reduce soil temperatures, particularly relative to new clear mulch. Mulch type, either newly laid or year-old, had no impact on yields of marketable tomatoes. More fruit reached full red color prior to harvest in response to clear mulch than to no mulch (bare soil). Yields of marketable tomato fruit obtained on year-old mulch of all types were comparable to yields obtained with new mulch. These data suggest that double-cropping of plastic mulches can be done without loss of crop yield and provide significant savings in materials, labor and disposal costs. While clear mulch was generally the most beneficial for the production of warm season vegetable crops, it did not prevent weed growth in the second year which was problematic. Key words: Wavelength selective, light transmission, cucumber, pepper, tomato

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it