Plot Direction and Spacing Effects on Interplot Interference in Spring Wheat Cultivar Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interplot interference can distort treatment estimates when genotypes differ for height. Two field arrangements were examined to determine if interplot interference could be reduced. One arrangement compared north–south vs. east–west row direction at Saskatoon in 1995 and 1996. The other experiment investigated the effects of separating plots with a row of spring‐planted winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) at Regina and Swift Current in 1995 and 1996. Interplot interference was evaluated with two spring wheat cultivars differing for height, Oslo (short) and Glenlea (tall). Interplot interference caused a 12% yield reduction in Oslo in the north–south rows, which was significantly greater than the 7% yield reduction in the east–west rows. The 7% yield reduction when spring‐planted winter wheat separated the plots was significantly less than the 18% yield reduction when plots were adjacent. This study was conducted at fairly high latitudes and the conclusions should be restricted to higher latitudes. We conclude that spring wheat field trials with plots differing for height may have less interplot interference if rows are oriented east–west and separated with winter wheat.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".