MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110637065 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.19.4.719

Irrigation Scheduling for ‘Sovereign Coronation’ Table Grapes Based on Evapotranspiration Calculations and Crop Coefficients

2009· article· en· W2110637065 on OpenAlex
Andrew G. Reynolds, Amal Ehtaiwesh, Christiane de Savigny

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHortTechnology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationEvapotranspirationVineyardCrop coefficientEnvironmental scienceTranspirationIrrigation schedulingAgronomyCanopyWine grapeWater contentWater useWater-use efficiencyHorticultureBotanyPhotosynthesisBiologyCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several irrigation treatments were evaluated on ‘Sovereign Coronation’ ( Vitis labruscana ) table grapes at two vineyard sites in Ontario, Canada in 2003 to 2005 to assess the usefulness of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Penman-Monteith equation for predicting vine irrigation needs. Data (relative humidity, wind speed, solar radiation, and temperature) for calculating reference evapotranspiration (ET o ) were downloaded from the Ontario Weather Network. The five irrigation treatments were nonirrigated control plus four based on combinations of one of two ET o values [100% (ET100) or 150% (ET150)] and two crop coefficients [Kc (fixed at 0.75 or 0.5 – 0.8 based upon increasing canopy volume)] used to calculate the required irrigation water volume. Transpiration (Ts), leaf water potential ( ψ ), and soil moisture data were collected in all three seasons. Yield components data were collected and berries were analyzed for soluble solids, pH, titratable acidity (TA), anthocyanins, methyl anthranilate (MA), and total volatile esters (TVE). Irrigation typically increased Ts rate and soil moisture; the nonirrigated treatment showed consistently lower Ts and soil moisture over the three seasons. Irrigation also increased leaf ψ , which was lower throughout the three seasons for nonirrigated vines. Irrigation additionally increased yield and its various components (clusters per vine, cluster weight, and berries per cluster) in 2005. Berry weights were higher for irrigated treatments at both sites, and were consistently the main variable leading to yield increases. Soluble solids was highest for the K c = 0.75 treatments. pH, TA, anthocyanins, and phenols were highest in nonirrigated treatments in 2003 and 2004, but were highest in irrigated treatments in 2005. MA and TVE were highest in the ET150 treatments. The use of irrigation was effective in reducing water stress and for improving yield and fruit composition of ‘Sovereign Coronation’ table grapes in the Niagara region of Ontario. The ET150 treatments were particularly beneficial. Soil and vine water status measurements indicated that irrigation was required for Summer 2003 and 2005 due to dry conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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