MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797193705 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2017-0001

Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions from surface and subsurface drip irrigated tomato fields

2018· article· en· W2797193705 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kerri P. Edwards, Chandra A. Madramootoo, Joann K. Whalen, Viacheslav I. Adamchuk, Ahmad Suhaizi Mat Su, Hicham Benslim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrip irrigationLoamIrrigationNitrous oxideEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasCarbon dioxideAgronomyHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterChemistrySoil scienceEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irrigation practices change the soil moisture in agricultural fields and influence emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). A 2 yr field study was conducted to assess carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions from surface and subsurface drip irrigated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fields on a loamy sand in southern Ontario. Surface and subsurface drip irrigation are common irrigation practices used by tomato growers in southern Ontario. The N 2 O fluxes were generally ≤50 μg N 2 O-N m −2 h −1 , with mean cumulative emissions ranging between 352 ± 83 and 486 ± 138 mg N 2 O-N m −2 . No significant difference in N 2 O emissions between the two drip irrigation practices was found in either study year. Mean CO 2 fluxes ranged from 22 to 160 mg CO 2 -C m 2 h −1 with cumulative fluxes between 188 ± 42 and 306 ± 31 g CO 2 -C m −2 . Seasonal CO 2 emissions from surface drip irrigation were significantly greater than subsurface drip irrigation in both years, likely attributed to sampling time temperature differences. We conclude that these irrigation methods did not have a direct effect on the GHG emissions from tomato fields in this study. Therefore, both irrigation methods are expected to have similar environmental impacts and are recommended to growers.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207