The effect of seeding date, seeding rate and N fertilization on winter wheat yield and yield components in eastern Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Livestock farmers in Newfoundland presently import most of their feed grain, and local self-sufficiency in grain production is a desirable long-term goal. The overall objective of this work was to refine our understanding of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production in Newfoundland, with the aim of improving present cropping recommendations. We conducted trials near St. John's in 1998 and 1999 to examine the effect of seeding rate and topdress ammonium nitrate (N) fertilization rate on Borden winter wheat yield and yield components. We also conducted four seeding date trials in the same region. Optimum-treatment grain yields in our six trials ranged from 2.76 to 5.39 t ha −1 . In years of variable winter kill, increasing seeding rate up to 450 seeds m −2 increased spikes m −2 at harvest, resulting in increased grain yield. Seeding rate, however, was not as important as N fertilization in maximizing grain yield. Increasing topdress fertilization to 60 kg N ha –1 increased spikes m –2 at harvest in years of variable winter kill, resulting in greater grain yield. In years of high winter survival, the main source of higher grain yield levels (through higher N application rates) was not achieved through greater spikes m −2 at harvest, but rather through an increase in kernel weight. Optimum grain yields occurred at seeding rates of 400 ± 50 seeds m −2 , and at topdress fertilizer applications up to a rate of at least 30 kg N ha −1 . Given the results of our seeding date experiments, in conjunction with previously developed climatic models, we now consider the optimum seeding date for the eastern region of Newfoundland to be August 31. Key words: Yield component analysis, two-dimensional partitioning, Triticum aestivum L., ammonium nitrate
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".