Strip Tillage and Compost Influence Carrot Quality, Yield, and Net Returns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management practices that build soil organic matter—including reduced tillage, cover cropping, and compost applications—may be useful for protecting vulnerable crops from extreme weather events, reducing energy costs, and suppressing pests in carrot ( Daucus carota subsp. sativa) production systems. The primary objective of this research was to assess the effects of strip tillage, compost, and carrot cultivar on carrot quality, yield, and profitability. An important secondary objective was to evaluate the impact of tillage and compost on establishment of important weeds in carrot systems—including two species that have developed resistance to linuron: Powell amaranth ( Amaranthus powellii ) and common purslane ( Portulaca oleracea ). Field experiments were conducted in 2009 and 2010 comparing conventional tillage (CT) to strip tillage (ST) under two rates of mature compost addition (0 or 3 dry t·ha −1 ) for three processing carrot varieties (‘Canada’, ‘Finley’, and ‘Recoleta’). In the ST system, a pre-established barley cover crop was left to grow as a windbreak between crop rows until carrots were established. Partial budget analysis was used to estimate net returns associated with all treatments. Compared with CT, the ST system resulted in 1) either equivalent or greater (2010, Finley cultivar) total carrot yields and net returns; and 2) either equivalent or lower summer annual weed densities. Addition of compost resulted in equivalent (2010) or higher (2009) carrot yields and gross returns but did not affect net returns as a result of the increased costs associated with compost application. Compost reduced the density of common purslane in 2009 but resulted in a threefold increase in the density of Powell amaranth in 2010. Our results demonstrate that both ST and compost applications are potentially valuable tools for improving the profitability of carrot production systems. Future research examining the mechanistic basis for compost and tillage effects on carrots and weeds as well as the long-term effects of these practices on profitability of rotational crops would be helpful for optimizing their use in vegetable production systems.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".