Alternative nitrogen management options for winter wheat on the eastern prairies of western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate is no longer available for general use in Canada, there is much discussion about the best management practices to minimize nitrogen (N) loss when fertilizing winter wheat. In two separate trials we compared several fall and spring N management options with the standard practice of spring-applied ammonium nitrate. In Study 1, the use of a coulter in fall or spring reduced seed yields, even when ammonium nitrate (AN) was broadcast in the spring, indicating crop damage. Spring broadcast applications of urea and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) produced yields equivalent to spring broadcast AN. Urea applied at the time of planting produced seed yields relative to spring application of AN. The late fall UAN treatment had lower yields than when this product was applied in the spring. Protein levels varied among site-years, but were generally lower than the marketing target of 115 g kg -1 , which indicates less than optimal N levels or N uptake. In both studies, late fall surface banded UAN was inferior to other products and timings. In Study 2, seed yield and protein content were similar for all forms of urea placed at seeding, and these were similar to spring broadcast AN. We also found that under the relatively low fall and spring moisture conditions encountered in Study 2 protected N sources did not increase N use efficiency.Key words: Winter wheat, nitrogen, protein, yield
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".