MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167156820 · doi:10.3390/su70810602

Water Table Control for Increasing Yield and Saving Water in Cranberry Production

2015· article· en· W2167156820 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vincent Pelletier, Jacques Gallichand, Silvio José Gumière, Steeve Pépin, Jean Caron

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater tableYield (engineering)Frost (temperature)IrrigationDrainageSugarWater useHydrology (agriculture)AgronomyGeologyChemistryBiologyGeotechnical engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water table control has been successfully tested to improve the sustainability of water management in cranberry production. In the province of Québec (Canada), three sites were investigated to determine the optimum water table depth below soil surface (WTD) using three criteria: (1) increasing yield without decreasing fruit quality; (2) minimizing the amount of water needed by the sprinkler system; and (3) avoiding hypoxic stresses in the rhizosphere. Our results show that the final yield, the berry sugar content, the total number of berries, the number of berries per upright, and the fruit set were maximized when the WTD was 60 cm. Sprinkler water savings of 77% were obtained where the WTD was shallower than 66 cm. In order to avoid hypoxic conditions due to poor drainage, the water level in the canals surrounding the beds should be lowered to 80 cm when a rainfall or a frost protection irrigation is anticipated. All sides of a block of beds must be surrounded by canals to ensure a uniform WTD and to avoid lateral hydraulic gradients that could cause peripheral seepage losses.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207