MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580461050 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2016-0086

Irrigation and drainage management strategies to enhance cranberry production and optimize water use in North America

2017· article· en· W2580461050 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean Caron, Vincent Pelletier, Casey D. Kennedy, Jacques Gallichand, Silvio José Gumière, Simon Bonin, William L. Bland, Steeve Pépin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-DameAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrainageEnvironmental scienceEvapotranspirationIrrigationSoil waterIrrigation managementAgricultural engineeringDeficit irrigationHydrology (agriculture)AgronomySoil scienceEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research funding, as well as technological and management changes, has led to important scientific discoveries on irrigation and drainage of cranberry that could significantly impact on plant yield and water use. This paper integrates all this information into new proposed guidelines for irrigation and drainage management of cranberry. It explains the interaction of the different concepts, with the most recent ones published in this special issue. Cranberry yield is very sensitive to wet anaerobic conditions (soil matric potential >−4 kPa) or dry bed conditions (<−7 kPa) limiting capillary rise. It also appears that important water savings can be achieving by irrigating by a combination of overhead and subirrigation maintaining the top 15 cm of the bed within those soil matric potential limits and to meet an evapotranspiration demand up to 7.5 mm d−1, provide frost and heat protection, and avoid salt accumulation, as this crop also appears sensitive to salinity stress. Finally, following plantings, soil properties appear to evolve dynamically and should be followed through profile observations, and combination of soil water potential and ground penetrating radar data, to identify potential yield limitations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207