MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412873313 · doi:10.3390/horticulturae11070849

Deficit Irrigation and Nitrogen Application Rate Influence Growth and Yield of Four Potato Cultivars (Solanum tuberosum L.)

2025· article· en· W4412873313 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdulssamad M. H. Barka, S. Y. C. Essah, Jessica G. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueHorticulturae · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPotato Plant Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersColorado Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsSolanum tuberosumCultivarYield (engineering)IrrigationNitrogenAgronomyHorticultureCrop yieldBiologyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potatoes have high nitrogen (N) and irrigation requirements. Increasing water scarcity and environmental concerns highlight the need for efficient resource management. This study evaluated the effects of deficit irrigation and reduced N on yield and growth parameters in four potato cultivars (Canela Russet, Mesa Russet, Russet Norkotah3, and Yukon Gold) at Colorado State University’s San Luis Valley Research Center over two growing seasons. Three irrigation levels (~70%, ~80%, and 100% ET replacement) and two N rates (165 and 131 kg/ha) were evaluated. Measurements included total and marketable yield, tuber size distribution, tuber bulking (TB), leaf area index (LAI), and stem and tuber numbers. Yield losses were absent with ≤18% irrigation reduction in Canela Russet, Mesa Russet, or Yukon Gold but occurred with larger deficits. Russet Norkotah3 experienced yield decline with 16–23% reductions in irrigation. A twenty percent reduction in N application had no effect on Mesa Russet or Russet Norkotah3 yields, while the other varieties experienced a yield decline in one out of two years. Early-season LAI and late-season TB were positively correlated with yield, particularly for Canela Russet and Russet Norkotah3. These findings suggest irrigation and N inputs can be reduced without compromising productivity, but reductions must be determined on a cultivar-by-cultivar basis.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHorticulturaeSame topicPotato Plant ResearchFrench-language works237,207