ESTABLISHING DRYLAND FORAGES IN SEVERELY-SALINE SITES USING IN-SITU WATER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over time, the evapotranspiration of near-surface, in-situ ground water can salinize root zones.In many saline sites, the near-surface ground water is less saline than the solutions of the rootzoneabove the water table. In a field study conducted in semiarid Saskatchewan, fall irrigationswith in-situ water from a shallow, on-site well fitted with a solar-powered pump preceded springseedings of Beaver alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and an experimental, salt-tolerant strain of thewheatgrass Elymus hoffmannii (Jensen & Asay). Six plots with top-soil averaging 13.85 dS/m(ECe) were irrigated with 4.6 dS/m in-situ water in respective applications amounting to 1010,1180, 1350, 1860, 2190, and 2530 mm. Six additional plots received no irrigation water.<br><br>By spring seeding-time, the fall irrigation treatments lowered the mean soil salinity in the upper0-900 mm of the soil profile an average -18.2%. The relative gain in profile soil water averaged+10.0%. In the non-irrigated plots, overwinter precipitation (92.1 mm), increased soil watercontent +10.6% and lowered the profile salinity -5.5% based on the fall values. Differentially,pre-irrigation resulted in a net mean decrease in root-zone salinity of -12.7%. Seedbed salinitydecreased -52.5%, from 14.2 to 6.8 dS/m in mean electrical conductivity.<br><br>The pre-seeding irrigation increased the mean emergence percentage of the alfalfa four-fold(19.7 to 78.8%), but only from 46 to 65% for the wheatgrass. Pre-irrigation also improved thespacing of the emerged alfalfa plants within the seeded row five-fold, but the wheatgrassspacing was not improved. However, mean plant height at harvest increased significantly forboth forages after irrigation, gaining 206 and 119% over the mean heights of the non-irrigatedalfalfa and wheatgrass, respectively. Mean establishment-year forage yields of alfalfa andwheatgrass increased 2560 and 958%, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".