Seeding ratios and rates that maximize annual forage production in Black soil zones of central Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three different seeding densities and four seeding ratios of spring and fall crop components for annual forage production were evaluated for maximizing silage and fall regrowth yield in a 3-yr study at Melfort, Saskatchewan. Binary mixtures of a spring cereal, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) or oat (Avena sativa L.), and a fall crop, fall rye (Secale cereale L.) or Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), were seeded at three total stand seed densities (150, 275 and 400 seeds m-2), which consequently resulted in the following spring:fall seeding crop component ratios: 1:0, 2:1, 1:2 and 0:1. Both spring and fall crops were harvested when the spring cereals were at the soft-dough stage (silage cut) and late in the autumn (fall regrowth cut). Average spring crop component yield was greater for the silage cut (4806 kg ha-1) than for the fall regrowth cut (329 kg ha-1), and total sward yield was greater for the silage cut (5995 kg ha-1) than for the fall regrowth cut (1261 kg ha-1). Productivity of the fall component was 1173 and 929 kg ha-1 for the silage and fall regrowth cuts, respectively. Total crop yield was often maximized with seeding ratios of 60% spring:fall crop component or greater for the different combinations. Fall regrowth cut yields were always maximized by seeding 100% fall crop component. The spring crop component yield, especially for the oat mixtures, contributed very little to fall regrowth yields. Stand seeding rate frequently affected spring component and total crop yield, but not fall crop yield. Silage and annual yield for the spring crop and total sward increased with increase in stand seeding rate. Fall crop yield was not affected by stand seeding rate or its effect was of questionable practical importance. Italian ryegrass produced the most fall regrowth yield. Weed management was identified as a possible area for future research with regard to seeding ratios and rates for annual forage stands. Key words: Monocrop, intercrop, annual forage, seeding rates, seeding ratio
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".