Reduced Tillage Alternatives for Machine-harvested Cucumbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cucumber ( Cucumis sativus L.) is grown using intensive tillage practices, which increase the cost of production and may lead to an increase in soil and water erosion. Research on alternative tillage practices for cucumber production has been limited primarily to exploring the benefits of no tillage. Alternative tillage practices, such as disking (one pass with a tandem disk) and zone tillage (one pass with a Trans-till) have not been investigated. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the influence of reduced tillage practices on the growth, development, and yield of cucumbers. Seedling emergence varied between years, but was unaffected by a reduction in tillage, while cucumber leaf number, leaf area index, and vine growth were reduced by no tillage ( P ≤ 0.05). Total dry matter accumulation and days to 50% open flower varied with tillage. No-tillage plots produced an average of 34 g·m -2 of dry matter compared to 47 g·m -2 for conventional tillage plots and took 1 day longer to reach 50% flower. Although growth differences were observed under all reduced tillage treatments, no reduction in total yield was observed when compared with conventional tillage yields. Alternative reduced tillage practices, such as disking or zone tillage, were found to be viable options for successful cucumber production. These alternative practices will reduce the cost of production, provide growers with greater time flexibility and ease of land preparation, and reduce the potential for water and wind erosion.
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".