Irrigation practices, nutrient applications, and mulches affect soil nutrient dynamics in a young Merlot (<i>Vitis vinifera</i> L.) vineyard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest among commercial wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) growers in reducing water and fertilizer consumption, but little information exists on how best to combine conservative irrigation and soil management practices in the vineyard. In a 3-year-old Merlot vineyard in the semi-arid Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, the interactive effects of resource-conserving micro-irrigation (drippers or microsprinkers), nutrient applications (fertigation or compost), and surface mulching (wood and bark chips) on nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) dynamics in the wetted zone of surface soils were examined throughout the growing season using ion-exchange resins. Treatment differences in soil carbon and major nutrient pools, temperature, and moisture were also measured. Higher NO 3 -N was adsorbed by resins buried under drippers than under microsprinklers except in mulched plots, where NO 3 -N was uniformly low. By enhancing soil carbon availability and moderating soil microclimate, surface mulches may have promoted microbial immobilisation of N. Compost applications increased soil ortho-P levels, especially on mulched plots, suggesting that both P inputs (from compost) and enhanced microbial biomass (from mulch) promoted soil P cycling. Future work will examine the interactive effects of these resource-efficient practices on leaching losses, greenhouse gas emissions, crop productivity, and fruit quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".