Seedling emergence, pod development, and seed yields of chickpea and dry pea in a semiarid environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), an annual legume, has recently been introduced to western Canada, and is being rapidly adopted in the semiarid prairies, but little information exists on the crop establishment and agronomic management. A field study was conducted from 1998 to 2000 in southwestern Saskatchewan to determine effect of planting dates on seedling emergence, pod development, and seed yields for two market classes of chickpea (i.e., small- and large-seeded) compared to dry pea (Pisum sativum L.). The early-planted chickpea required 8 more days to emerge than late-planted chickpea. Averaged over the two planting dates, small-seeded chickpea required 103 heat units (base 5°C) to emerge compared to 110 for large-seeded chickpea and 97 for dry pea. Compared to the respective late-planting, the reproductive period (flowering to maturity) was 4 d longer for the early-planted chickpea, allowing the plants to use 49 (or 9%) more accumulated heat units. Consequently, the early-planted chickpea produced 17% more fertile pods per plant than the late-planted chickpea. Seed yields averaged 2.17 t ha-1 for small-seeded chickpea, 1.88 t ha-1 for large-seeded chickpea, and 3.54 t ha-1 for dry pea. With early planting, chickpea increased seed yields by 7.5% in 1998, 14% in 1999, and 18.5% in 2000, and dry pea increased seed yield by 37% in 1998, 9% in 1999, and 14% in 2000. The small-seeded chickpea had 53% more fertile pods per plant, and produced 15% higher seed yield than large-seeded chickpea. Seed yields of both chickpea and dry pea in a semiarid environment can be enhanced by management practices that promote early seedling emergence, prolonged reproductive period, and increased pod fertility. Key words: Seeding date, fertile pods, seed size, Cicer arietinum, Pisum sativum
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".