Economic effect of fall vs. spring plowing of forage on following potato production in Prince Edward Island, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fall plowing of forage in a typical barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)–forage–potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) rotation in Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada has led to negative environmental impacts, including soil erosion and nitrate leaching to groundwater. Data from five locations in PEI during 2009–2016 were assessed to determine the effects of delaying plow‐down of forage from early and late fall to spring on economic returns and risk of returns trade‐offs for potato producers. Factors related to fall or spring plowing such as soil erosion, nitrate leaching, planting date, effect on weeds, insects and diseases, potato harvest loss, and labor constraints were quantified. Potato yields were the same for fall and spring plowing; however, combined data for the five experiments showed late fall plowing was preferred over spring plowing for risk‐averse or neutral potato growers. Risk neutral farmers would require receiving between CAN$229 and $836 ha−1 yr−1, depending on yield loss for spring plowing due to delayed seeding, to be indifferent between fall and spring plowing options. Risk‐averse farmers at all levels of risk aversion would require being paid more than $600 ha−1 yr−1 to be indifferent between fall and spring tillage when 4–6% of yield loss for spring plowing due to delayed planting is assumed. Although spring tillage provides reductions in the risk of soil erosion and nitrate leaching, it also affects production risk and uncertainty. Therefore, we recommend farmers plow forage as late as possible in the autumn and replace it with other conservation tillage practices.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".