Comparing rooting characteristics and soil water withdrawal patterns of wheat with alternative oilseed and pulse crops grown in the semiarid Canadian prairie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutforth, H. W., Angadi, S. V., McConkey, B. G., Miller, P. R., Ulrich, D., Gulden, R., Volkmar, K. M., Entz, M. H. and Brandt, S. A. 2013. Comparing rooting characteristics and soil water withdrawal patterns of wheat with alternative oilseed and pulse crops grown in the semiarid Canadian prairie. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 147–160. To improve sustainability and increase economic returns, producers in the semiarid Canadian prairie are diversifying their cropping systems to include alternative crops such as pulses and oilseeds in rotation with wheat. Producers must adopt crops and cropping systems that use water most efficiently. We compared the root systems and water withdrawal patterns for three pulse crops (leguminous grain crops) [chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris Medik. L.)] and three oilseed crops [canola (Brassica napus L. and Brassica rapa L.) and mustard (Brassica juncea L.)] with one cereal crop [wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)] under well-watered, rain-fed, imposed drought water regimes during 1996–1998. Wheat withdrew the most water, whereas pulses withdrew the least amount of water from the soil profile. Pulses withdrew substantially less water than oilseeds and wheat below about the 80-cm depth, whereas oilseeds withdrew less water than wheat from the upper regions of the soil profile, thus increasing soil water available to the following crops. Therefore, producers can increase the overall efficiency of a crop rotation by growing deeper rooting crops, such as wheat and canola, following pulses, and by growing crops, such as wheat, that will use the increased soil water reserves following canola.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".