MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969330545 · doi:10.1094/fg-2009-1231-01-rs

Kura Clover Response to Drought

2009· article· en· W1969330545 on OpenAlexaff
Craig C. Sheaffer, Philippe Séguin

Bibliographic record

VenueForage and Grazinglands · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotus corniculatusLegumeAgronomyTrefoilRed CloverForageBiologyFodderNeutral Detergent FiberMedicago sativa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drought frequently limits cool‐season legume productivity during summer. Our objective was to determine the effect of drought (water deficits) on forage yield, forage quality, and stand persistence of Kura clover ( Trifolium ambiguum M.B.), compared to alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.), red clover ( Trifolium pratense L.), birdsfoot trefoil ( Lotus corniculatus L.), and cicer milkvetch ( Astragalus cicer L.). Kura clover was consistently among the lowest yielding legumes whether grown with (control) or without supplemental water applied while alfalfa was consistently among the highest yielding. Over 4 years, yields of Kura clover, alfalfa, red clover, birdsfoot trefoil, and cicer milkvetch were 168, 76, 117, 98, and 80% greater for the control compared to the drought treatment. Populations of Kura clover increased from 10 to over 35 plants/ft² during the experiment and were similar for drought and control treatments. Final populations of the other legumes averaged < 3 plants/ft². For both water regimes, Kura clover was consistently among those legumes with the highest herbage crude protein (CP) concentration and lowest fiber content. Drought decreased legume herbage neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) concentration and increased NDF digestibility compared to the irrigated control. Kura clover will persist under drought, but its forage yields will be reduced to a greater extent than for other legumes.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForage and GrazinglandsSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207