MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1981071926 · doi:10.4141/p02-160

Cropping frequency, wheat classes and flexible rotations: Effects on production, nitrogen economy, and water use in a Brown Chernozem

2003· article· en· W1981071926 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R.P. Zentner, C. A. Campbell, F. Selles, B.G. McConkey, P. G. Jefferson, R. Lemke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChernozemAgronomyCrop rotationTillageFertilizerSummer fallowEnvironmental scienceWeed controlCroppingSoil waterPerennial plantWeedTriticaleMathematicsCropAgricultureBiologyEcologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Producers in the semiarid Canadian prairies rely on frequent summerfallowing (F) to conserve water, control weed infestations, and maximize soil mineral N reserves, but this practice often results in soil degradation. A crop rotation experiment was initiated in 1987 on a medium-textured, Orthic Brown Chernozem at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, to determine the most ideal cropping frequency for wheat in this region and whether a fixed rotation such as fallow-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) - wheat (F-W-W) or F-W-W-W would be more effective than flexible rotations in which fallowing is decided each spring based on criteria such as available soil water (if water), or the need to control perennial weed infestations (if weeds). The study also compared the production of traditional Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat class with the newer higher-yielding (Hy), Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) wheat class. We analyzed results of six rotations over the first 12 yr of the study. The rotations included F-W-W, F-W-W-W, F-Hy-Hy, Continuous wheat (Cont W), Cont W (if weeds), and Cont W (if water). Reduced tillage management was used and stubble was cut tall to enhance snowtrap. Fertilizer N was applied based on soil tests and fertilizer P was applied based on the general recommendations for the region. Over the 1988–1999 period, weather conditions were generally favourable and yields were above average for this region. Canada Prairie Spring wheat outyielded CWRS by 32% when grown on fallow and by 17% when grown on stubble; however, straw yields of the two wheat classes were similar on fallow and CPS was 11% less than CWRS on stubble. Harvest index (HI) averaged 44% for CPS and 37% for CWRS wheat. Water use efficiency for CWRS wheat grown on fallow averaged 7.2 kg ha-1 mm-1 and for CPS 9.4; when grown on stubble the respective values were 6.3 and 7.5 kg ha-1 mm-1. Grain N concentration for CWRS was slightly higher for wheat grown on fallow (25.7 g kg-1) than on stubble (24.5 g kg-1), but was similar for CPS wheat on grown on fallow and stubble (21.9 g kg-1). Straw N concentration averaged 3.8 g kg-1 for CWRS and 4.4 g kg-1 for CPS. Nitrogen yield for grain from CPS was 9% greater than from CWRS when grown on fallow, but there was no effect of wheat class when grown on stubble. Nitrogen yield of CPS straw was 15% greater than for CWRS when grown on fallow, but on stubble N yield was generally not affected by wheat class. Nitrogen harvest index (NHI) averaged about 80% for both wheat classes, whether grown on fallow or stubble. On a rotation basis, grain produced with F-W-W was 1502 kg ha-1 yr-1. The F-W-W-W and Cont W (if weeds) rotations produced 9% more grain than F-W-W, while Cont W (if water) produced 24% more, F-Hy-Hy produced 26% more, and Cont W produced 30% more than F-W-W. Nitrogen production in the grain, straw and aboveground plant material was lowest in F-W-W, highest in Cont W, and intermediate for other rotations. Although the economic and soil quality assessments have yet to be completed, a preliminary conclusion based on crop production characteristics alone suggests that a flexible cropping system in which available soil water in spring is used as the determining criterion is superior to a fixed F-W-W or F-W-W-W rotation. Key words: Yield, N concentration, N yield, water deficit, wheat classes, regressions

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→