Yields and Nutritional of Greenhouse Tomato in Response to Different Soil Aeration Volume at two depths of Subsurface drip irrigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of 4 aeration levels (varied by injection of air to the soil through subsurface irrigation lines) at two subsurface irrigation line depths (15 and 40 cm) on plant growth, yield and nutritional quality of greenhouse tomato. In all experiments, fruit number, width and length, yield, vitamin C, lycopene and sugar/acid ratio of tomato markedly increased in response to the aeration treatments. Vitamin C, lycopene, and sugar/acid ratio increased by 41%, 2%, and 43%, respectively, in the 1.5 times standard aeration volume compared with the no-aeration treatment. An interaction between aeration level and depth of irrigation line was also observed with yield, fruit number, fruit length, vitamin C and sugar/acid ratio of greenhouse tomato increasing at each aeration level when irrigation lines were placed at 40 cm depth. However, when the irrigation lines were 15 cm deep, the trend of total fruit yields, fruit width, fruit length and sugar/acid ratio first increased and then decreased with increasing aeration level. Total soluble solids and titrable acid decreased with increasing aeration level both at 15 and 40 cm irrigation line placement. When all of the quality factors, yields and economic benefit are considered together, the combination of 40 cm line depth and "standard" aeration level was the optimum combination.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".