Growth and Physiology of Cherry Tomatoes Under Organic Fertilization in Different Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cherry tomato is a vegetable that is gaining great prominence commercially and, for this reason, are being developed alternatives that aim to its production of more sustainable way. Among these alternatives are the use of organic fertilizers and barriers alive. The objective of this study was to evaluate the growth and gas exchange of cherry tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum var. Cerasiforme) cultivated under different organic fertilizations in an environment with and without alive barrier. The experimental design was randomized blocks with split-plot to the variables leaf area, leaves dry mass and stem dry mass, relative index of chlorophyll, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration and water use efficiency, being the plots defined by two environments (with or without barrier) and the subplots formed by the sources of organic fertilizer (chicken manure, bovine manure and without fertilization), with five repetitions. As for the variables plant height, stem diameter, used a split-split plot design with sub-subplots formed by the seven evaluation epochs (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42 and 49 days after transplanting). When cultivated in alive barrier environment and under fertilization with chicken manure, cherry tomato plants presented higher growth in height and stem diameter, with no difference between the leaf and stem dry masses. In contrast, the without alive barrier environment provided an increase in chlorophyll content and increases of 55.38%, 34.49% and 46.81% in stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration, respectively. For WUE, the environment with alive barrier was higher in 18.71%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".