Impact of tillage on field pea following spring wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tillage is being reduced in semiarid regions. The impact of changing tillage practices on field pea (Pisum sativum L.) performance has not been considered in a major pea-producing area within the US northern Great Plains. A study was conducted from 2000 through 2005 to determine how field pea performance compared following spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in clean-till (CT), reduced-till (RT), and no-till (NT) systems arranged in a randomized complete block at Dickinson in southwestern North Dakota. Seed yield increased over 1600 kg ha -1 in 2000 and almost 400 kg ha -1 in 2003 under NT compared with CT, and by 960 kg ha -1 in 2000 under NT compared with RT (P < 0.05). Differences in seed yield were not detected between tillage systems in other years. Plant establishment was improved as tillage was reduced, averaging 66 plants m -2 under NT and RT compared with 60 plants m -2 under CT management. The soil water conservation that can occur after adopting NT may explain the increased seed yields that occurred in some years. These results suggest that field pea seed yield can be increased by eliminating tillage in semiarid areas of the US northern Great Plains, particularly when dry conditions develop and persist. Key words: Zero tillage, field pea, cropping system, N-fixation, legume
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".