305 Effects of Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Its Diurnal Changes in Nutrient Feedings on Fruit Yield and Quality of Greenhouse Tomato Grown in Rockwool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor tomato fruit quality in summer time (soft fruit, cracking, and russetting) is a major greenhouse production problem in North America. To improve tomato quality and yield, especially under summer conditions, four EC treatments were applied to a tomato crop grown in rockwool in summer and fall of 1999 at the Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Harrow, Ont., Canada. The four fertigation solution EC treatments were 1) constant low EC at 2.54 mS·cm -1 , 2) constant high EC at 3.82 mS·cm -1 , 3) diurnal EC variation (1 to 5 mS·cm -1 ) with a 24-h average of 2.54 mS·cm -1 and 4) diurnal EC variation (1 to 7 mS·cm -1 ) with a 24-h average of 3.82 mS·cm -1 . For diurnal EC variation, the plants were fed with low EC in the morning and around noon, and high EC in the afternoon and night. High EC (3.82 mS·cm -1 , constant or 24-h average for diurnal variation) treatments, in comparison to the recommended EC (2.54 mS·cm -1 ) treatments, improved tomato fruit quality by reducing fruit cracking, and increasing percentage of grade #1 fruit, fruit firmness, soluble solid and dry-matter content. However, the constant high EC treatment resulted in smaller fruit size and lower yield. Diurnal EC variation with a high EC average (24-h average: 3.82 mS·cm -1 ) did not reduce fruit size and yield, and reduced fruit russetting. Therefore, a diurnal fertigation EC variation strategy-supplying low EC solution in the morning and noon and high EC solution in the afternoon and night, with an overall 24-h average of 3.82 mS·cm -1 , may be used to improve tomato 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 | 0.000 | 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".