Soybean Response to Zone Tillage, Twin‐Row Planting, and Row Spacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although zone tillage can result in favorable in‐row seedbed environments for high crop yield while providing soil conservation characteristics similar to no‐till, it necessitates a wide row width planting system. The objective of this study was to evaluate various zone‐till systems for soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production. This study was conducted in southwestern Ontario from 1998 to 2000 on nine fields with clay contents between 133 and 354 g kg −1 and a minimum 5‐yr continuous no‐till history. Tillage systems evaluated were fall moldboard, fall zone‐till 15‐ and 30‐cm deep, spring coulter tillage, and no‐till. The no‐till and moldboard systems were planted in equally spaced 19‐, 38‐, 57‐, and 76‐cm rows plus a twin‐row configuration consisting of two 19‐cm rows centered 76 cm apart. Only single 76‐cm and twin‐row configurations were planted in the zone‐till and coulter‐till systems, where tillage was conducted in strips centered 76 cm apart. Twin‐row configurations in no‐till, spring coulter‐till, and fall zone‐till systems often increased yields over those obtained with single 76‐cm rows, with yields that were always similar to those obtained with no‐till planted in 38‐ or 19‐cm rows. Depth of fall zone tillage did not affect soybean yield. Fall zone‐till yields never exceeded those obtained with no‐till, even in environments where no‐till yields were less than those obtained with fall moldboard systems. Spring coulter tillage did not increase yields over those obtained with no‐till. Future research evaluating zone‐till systems for soybean should consider using twin‐row planting configurations.
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 | 0.000 | 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".