The Impact of Underseeding Barley (<i>Hordeum vulgare</i> L.) on Timothy (<i>Phleum pratense</i> L.)‐Clover (<i>Trifolium pratense</i> L.; <i>Trifolium hybridum</i> L.) Forage Production in a Cool Maritime Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Growing barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) in the year of forage establishment is a common agronomic practice in marginal growing regions, but is often not recommended to growers. We examined the effect of silage barley production over an establishing timothy ( Phleum pratense L.)‐clover ( Trifolium pratense L.; Trifolium hybridum L.) forage sward in a 4‐year study near St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada. The experiment compared two barley varieties differing in plant height (semidwarf Chapais and Leger), three barley seeding rates and the effect of a forage understorey on forage (barley) production in the establishment year and forage (timothy‐clover) production in the subsequent year. The taller Leger yielded similar forage biomass to Chapais in the year of forage establishment, which (when planted at 375 plants m −2 ) was roughly twice that of a pure‐stand timothy‐clover mix. Increasing the barley seeding rate from 125 to 375 plants m −2 resulted in a linear increase in forage yield in the year of planting. The production of barley forage in the establishment year resulted in reduced timothy‐clover forage yield in the year following barley planted at 125 and 375 seeds m −2 , but not for barley planted at 250 seeds m −2 . Companion planting also altered forage species composition in that higher barley seeding rates resulted in 12–18 % less timothy and 2–4 % lower fibre levels in the year following planting. Barley seeded at rates of 250–375 seeds m −2 and undersown with a timothy‐clover mixture (harvested at mid‐milk) resulted in greater forage yield of poorer quality than pure‐stand timothy‐clover in the planting year, and a barley seeding rate of 250 seeds m −2 did not impede forage production in the subsequent year.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".