Effect of tillage system and crop sequence on irrigated sugarbeet production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.) are grown on intensively tilled-irrigated land in southern Alberta, which is subject to soil erosion by wind. Experiments were conducted on commercial fields near Burdett, AB, to determine the effect of the tillage system and previous crops on sugarbeet production. The previous crops were dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) or wheat (Triticum aestivium L.) and the tillage systems were conventional (moldboard plow, vibrashank cultivator, harrow, packer), minimum (double disc, self-cleaning harrow, glyphosate) or no tillage (glyphosate). After dry beans, sugarbeet fresh weight and extractable sugar yields were similar with all tillage systems. All of the tillage systems left less than 100 g m -2 of plant residue on the soil surface in the spring following dry beans, which is insufficient to protect the soil from wind erosion. After wheat, sugarbeet yields were similar with minimum and conventional tillage but lower with no tillage. Both minimum and no-tillage systems left sufficient plant residue on the soil surface to protect the soil from erosion (> 200 g m -2 ). Sugarbeet stand density following wheat was lower with no tillage than conventional or minimum tillage, reflecting poor seed placement and daily maximum soil temperature (5 cm depth) of up to 10°C lower under no tillage than conventional tillage. After wheat, there was a trend toward lower densities of hard-seeded annuals, such as redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), after no tillage than conventional tillage. Of the cropping systems tested in this study, only the minimum tillage system after wheat provided optimum sugarbeet yield and left enough plant residue to protect the soil from wind erosion. Key words: Crop rotation, bean, wheat, sugarbeet, no-tillage
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".