304 Effects of Calcium and Magnesium on Growth, Fruit Yield, and Quality of Greenhouse Tomato Grown in Rockwool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cv. Trust was grown in rockwool in summer and fall 1999 and 8 calcium/magnesium nutrient treatments, formed by two levels of calcium (Ca: 150 and 300 ppm) and four levels of magnesium (Mg: 20, 50, 80, and 110 ppm), were applied to investigate the effects on growth, fruit yield and quality. High calcium (300 ppm) increased overall fruit yield and size, reduced incidence of blossom-end rot and fruit cracking. However, high calcium also reduced the dry-matter content, soluble solid content and firmness of tomato fruit, and increased fruit russetting. Magnesium did not affect early growth or fruit production. However, 2 months after applying the treatments, the plants grown under 20 ppm Mg started to show Mg-deficient symptoms (leaf chlorosis), and Mg-deficient leaves lost more than 50% of their photosynthetic capability. The Mg concentration required for achieving high yield of firm fruit with high soluble solids and dry-matter content increased as the plant aged; i.e, 50 ppm in early stage of fruit production and 80 ppm in later stage of fruit production. At the end of experiment, the plants grown with 80 ppm of Mg also had the best root systems. Therefore, for both better yield and quality, a concentration of 300/50-80 ppm Ca/Mg may be recommended. Mg concentration may be started at 50 ppm and gradually be increased to 80 ppm in the later stage of fruit production.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".