Impact of Plow Timing on Simultaneous Nitrogen Losses in Potato Production Systems Using Conventional Tillage Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving plowing management of high nitrogen (N) containing crops is essential in reducing both environmental and economic losses. The timing of plowing may be an important soil and nutrient conservation practice. A field study on a 3 yr potato rotation was conducted in Prince Edward Island, Canada to examine the effects of plow time on corresponding N losses of nitrate-N (NO3--N) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The study site consisted of nine tile drained plots (12 m spacing) with three treatments of plow time; early fall (EF), late fall (LF) temperature based, and the following spring (S) plow. The cropping rotations consisted of barley under-seeded with red clover in yr 1, red clover in yr 2, and Russet Burbank potatoes in yr 3. Each tile drained plot fed into a sample collection station where 50 mL water samples were obtained during flow events and analyzed for NO3--N. Nitrous oxide samples were also simultaneously obtained from the soil surface throughout the monitoring period using a static chamber methodology. Cumulative NO3--N loads over the 3 yrs were found to be reduced at 14.3 and 19.9 kg ha-1 for LF and S respectively, when compared to the EF plow at 24.4 kg ha-1. Nitrous oxide losses were variable and low in magnitude throughout the study (0.04-1.2% of the N applied). Overall, findings from this research suggest that the timing of plowing could be considered when trying to minimize N losses via tile drainage effluent. When considering NO3--N total loads during the rotation period, LF had reduced losses compared to EF in all years of the study. Late fall reduced N2O losses in 1 year by 38.2% compared to S, likely due the incorporation of red clover legume crop. Yields were found to be similar throughout treatments and cropping years, although LF was found to have 2 and 3-fold significant increases in yield of 10 oz potatoes vs. EF and S, respectively. Findings generated from this study will provide nutrient management and environmental farm planners, as well as producers with useful information for improving current management strategies within agricultural drainage systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".