MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603799178 · doi:10.4141/cjss10099

A comparison of effects of one-pass and conventional potato hilling on water runoff and soil erosion under simulated rainfall

2011· article· en· W2603799178 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zisheng Xing, Lien Chow, H. W. Rees, Fan‐Rui Meng, J. L. Monteith, Lionel Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface runoffSowingAgronomySoil lossSoil waterCanopyEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceBiologyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xing, Z., Chow, L., Rees, H. W., Meng, F., Monteith, J. and Stevens, L. 2011. A comparison of effects of one-pass and conventional potato hilling on water runoff and soil erosion under simulated rainfall. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 279–290. Hilling plays an important role in potato production, but is found to be inducing soil loss. An artificial rainfall simulation system was used to evaluate the differences between one-pass hilling (OPH, hilling performed when planting, or shortly after planting) and conventional hilling (CH, hilling performed approximately 35–45 d after planting) as well as their combination with a cover crop (ryegrass; _R) on runoff and soil loss. A three-replicate randomized block experimental design with constant rainfall intensity (120 mm h−1) was used in this study. No significant differences in runoff were found between different hilling methods. The soil losses, however, showed significant differences both among treatments, among canopy cover classes, and among their interaction terms (all P<0.001). The mean soil loss for CH was significantly higher than that for OPH, by 40%, and the mean soil loss for CH_R was higher than that for OPH_R by 57%. On average, the CH treatments (CH and CH_R) induced greater soil loss than the OPH treatments (OPH and OPH_R) by 47%. Further, the effects can vary with different canopy cover percentages. The OPH treatments (OPH and OPH_R) induced more soil loss than CH treatments (CH and CH_R), by 4.4 to 12.8%, in the <30% canopy cover group, while soil loss in the CH treatments was greater than that in OPH treatments for both the 30–70% and >70% canopy cover groups by 21–94%. Irrespective of treatment, soil loss before canopy forming was 2.4 to 8.9 times higher than the soil loss for the partial to full canopy period. With a cover crop, the CH and OPH treatments can reduce soil loss by 37–55%. One-pass hilling initiated runoff earlier than CH. The water runoff and soil loss with respect to the elapsed time since initialization of water runoff and soil loss could be modeled by a three-parameter Sigmoid function with r 2≥0.94. The information generated from this study could be used in landscape modeling to study the impacts of potato production on soil and stream water 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207